Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scots' push for Britain breakup begins in earnest
reuters.com ^ | May 25, 2012 | Andrew Osborn

Posted on 05/25/2012 2:55:29 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper

Supporters of independence for Scotland will launch on Friday what they say is the biggest grassroots campaign in Scottish history, a move that could result in the demise of a 305-year-old union with England and the breakup of Britain.

Seeking to tap into a cocktail of historical rivalry, opposing political tastes, and a perception that the British parliament in London does not nurture Scotland's national interests, the "Yes Scotland" campaign says it wants to win a referendum on independence in 2014 and for the country to become fully independent by 2016.

(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Germany; Russia; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: europeanunion; france; germany; greece; russia; scotland; scotlandyet; unitedkingdom; yesscotland

1 posted on 05/25/2012 2:55:39 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

are they really after independence or simply become slaves to EU


2 posted on 05/25/2012 3:03:07 AM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper
Actually, it started long ago.

The Declaration of Arbroath 1320 — English Translation

To the most Holy Father and Lord in Christ, the Lord John, by divine providence Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman and Universal Church, his humble and devout sons Duncan, Earl of Fife, Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, Lord of Man and of Annandale, Patrick Dunbar, Earl of March, Malise, Earl of Strathearn, Malcolm, Earl of Lennox, William, Earl of Ross, Magnus, Earl of Caithness and Orkney, and William, Earl of Sutherland; Walter, Steward of Scotland, William Soules, Butler of Scotland, James, Lord of Douglas, Roger Mowbray, David, Lord of Brechin, David Graham, Ingram Umfraville, John Menteith, guardian of the earldom of Menteith, Alexander Fraser, Gilbert Hay, Constable of Scotland, Robert Keith, Marischal of Scotland, Henry St Clair, John Graham, David Lindsay, William Oliphant, Patrick Graham, John Fenton, William Abernethy, David Wemyss, William Mushet, Fergus of Ardrossan, Eustace Maxwell, William Ramsay, William Mowat, Alan Murray, Donald Campbell, John Cameron, Reginald Cheyne, Alexander Seton, Andrew Leslie, and Alexander Straiton, and the other barons and freeholders and the whole community of the realm of Scotland send all manner of filial reverence, with devout kisses of his blessed feet.

Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner. The high qualities and deserts of these people, were they not otherwise manifest, gain glory enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy faith. Nor would He have them confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles — by calling, though second or third in rank — the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed Peter's brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron forever.

The Most Holy Fathers your predecessors gave careful heed to these things and bestowed many favours and numerous privileges on this same kingdom and people, as being the special charge of the Blessed Peter's brother. Thus our nation under their protection did indeed live in freedom and peace up to the time when that mighty prince the King of the English, Edward, the father of the one who reigns today, when our kingdom had no head and our people harboured no malice or treachery and were then unused to wars or invasions, came in the guise of a friend and ally to harass them as an enemy. The deeds of cruelty, massacre, violence, pillage, arson, imprisoning prelates, burning down monasteries, robbing and killing monks and nuns, and yet other outrages without number which he committed against our people, sparing neither age nor sex, religion nor rank, no one could describe nor fully imagine unless he had seen them with his own eyes.

But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand. Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Therefore it is, Reverend Father and Lord, that we beseech your Holiness with our most earnest prayers and suppliant hearts, inasmuch as you will in your sincerity and goodness consider all this, that, since with Him Whose vice-gerent on earth you are there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, Scotsman or Englishman, you will look with the eyes of a father on the troubles and privation brought by the English upon us and upon the Church of God. May it please you to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought to be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling-place at all, and covet nothing but our own. We are sincerely willing to do anything for him, having regard to our condition, that we can, to win peace for ourselves. This truly concerns you, Holy Father, since you see the savagery of the heathen raging against the Christians, as the sins of Christians have indeed deserved, and the frontiers of Christendom being pressed inward every day; and how much it will tarnish your Holiness's memory if (which God forbid) the Church suffers eclipse or scandal in any branch of it during your time, you must perceive. Then rouse the Christian princes who for false reasons pretend that they cannot go to help of the Holy Land because of wars they have on hand with their neighbours. The real reason that prevents them is that in making war on their smaller neighbours they find quicker profit and weaker resistance. But how cheerfully our Lord the King and we too would go there if the King of the English would leave us in peace, He from Whom nothing is hidden well knows; and we profess and declare it to you as the Vicar of Christ and to all Christendom. But if your Holiness puts too much faith in the tales the English tell and will not give sincere belief to all this, nor refrain from favouring them to our prejudice, then the slaughter of bodies, the perdition of souls, and all the other misfortunes that will follow, inflicted by them on us and by us on them, will, we believe, be surely laid by the Most High to your charge.

To conclude, we are and shall ever be, as far as duty calls us, ready to do your will in all things, as obedient sons to you as His Vicar; and to Him as the Supreme King and Judge we commit the maintenance of our cause, casting our cares upon Him and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to nought. May the Most High preserve you to his Holy Church in holiness and health and grant you length of days.

Given at the monastery of Arbroath in Scotland on the sixth day of the month of April in the year of grace thirteen hundred and twenty and the fifteenth year of the reign of our King aforesaid.

Endorsed: Letter directed to our Lord the Supreme Pontiff by the community of Scotland.

3 posted on 05/25/2012 3:24:00 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Like Ireland (the republic) they’d get their own seat at the table instead of serving as the UK delegate’s footrest. I’m sure they wouldn’t have some say in their own immigration policies; they may be better off within the EU guidelines than within the UK’s.

Good luck, Celtic kin!


4 posted on 05/25/2012 3:33:15 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Scotland .... where men wear kilts because the sheep can hear zippers.


5 posted on 05/25/2012 3:50:48 AM PDT by Lizavetta (You get what you tolerate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

England Forever!

Scotland a wee bit longer...


6 posted on 05/25/2012 4:19:57 AM PDT by rjsimmon (1-20-2013 The Tree of Liberty Thirsts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

I don’t know where I stand on this. As a proud Briton, I would be sorry to see the Union break up, but on the other hand, as a Tory, I wouldn’t miss the socialist scotch voters who keep threatening to put Labour back in power and keep them there.
If they vote for independence will enjoy wallowing in schadenfreude to watch the scotch mired in socialist failure whilst England enjoys a new era of prosperity and low taxation without the Celtic dead weight weighing us down....


7 posted on 05/25/2012 5:00:04 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
they’d get their own seat at the table instead of serving as the UK delegate’s footrest

As often as not the UK delegate is a Scot!

8 posted on 05/25/2012 5:32:19 AM PDT by Winniesboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

Feeed yurr lawwwn. Feeed et!


9 posted on 05/25/2012 6:21:13 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Not Romney - Not ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Plus the English can keep its own tax money instead of shipping it off to Scotland although there is a debate about how much money Scotland “sends” to London via North Sea oil/gas .


10 posted on 05/25/2012 6:51:56 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

I predict that this will be as sucessful as the Quebec Independence Movement.


11 posted on 05/25/2012 7:01:50 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

I’m pretty sure that was effectively repealed by the Ascension of King James VI of Scots to the Throne of England, not to mention the Act of Union of 1707.

Both of which happened centuries AFTER that declaration.


12 posted on 05/25/2012 7:15:46 AM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps
I think the Act of Union was because of the death of Queen Anne's son--the English were going to go to her closest Protestant cousin (who turned out to be the Elector of Hanover--if Anne had died a little sooner George I's mother would have become queen of Great Britain), but they were afraid that the Scots might bring back the Stuart pretender, James VIII, a Catholic.

I assume that if Scotland becomes independent they will become a republic, rather than bringing back the person with the best genealogical claim to the throne, a member of the Wittelsbach family I believe.

It wouldn't mean a complete break-up of Britain--the English would still have Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands.

13 posted on 05/25/2012 8:03:07 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

If something like this can happen in Great Britain, it can happen here...


14 posted on 05/25/2012 8:29:51 AM PDT by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Scotland serves as nobody’s footrest, the Scots punch above their weight in the UK, politically, economically, socially.
The SNP idea that we are all just po’ slaves to dem English massas is insulting tosh.

Be like Ireland?. What, an economic basket case who rely on EU subsidies?. No thanks.


15 posted on 05/25/2012 8:39:30 AM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy

“As often as not the UK delegate is a Scot!”

Now it can be a Scot with Scotland’s interests at heart!


16 posted on 05/25/2012 3:02:24 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

“Be like Ireland?. What, an economic basket case who rely on EU subsidies?.”

Ireland made a deal with the devil when they took EU money; Scotland’s deal with the devil put an English queen on theirs. William Wallace’s dream of self-determination for his people was realized in (most of) Ireland in 1928; it has yet to return to Scotland. I was sincere when I wished the Scots well in their push for it.


17 posted on 05/25/2012 3:08:51 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper
England needs out of the United Kingdom more than Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.

Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have representation in both the Westminster Parliament and their own parliaments/assemblies. England does not because no English parliament or assembly exists.

Furthermore the British Prime Minister consults with official representatives from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. England has no such representative (and the PM is the British, not the English PM).

English national identity has been completely subsumed into British identity. Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish/Ulstermen remain Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish/Ulstermen. The English are just "British." A Scots, Welsh, or Ulster accent is called a Scots, Welsh, or Ulster accent. An English accent is called a "British" accent. Scots, Welsh, or Ulster history is called Scots, Welsh, and Ulster history. English history is called "British history."

England should get out now, whether it means returning to the dual monarchy of 1603-1707 or kicking the British monarch out of England and either going republican or getting one of their own. Let the leftist Scots and Welsh take care of their own business.

18 posted on 05/25/2012 3:17:25 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Contemporary Scottish nationalism is strictly left wing, even Marxist. Same with Irish and Welsh.


19 posted on 05/25/2012 3:19:38 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
It is England rather than Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, whose interests get subsumed in the current Union (see my earlier post above about the lack of a specifically English assembly of any kind while Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each have one).

Not all Scots are Celtic. Some, particularly in the southeast, are Angles rather than Celts. The idea that Scots are all "indigenous" Celts who grew up from the land like the plant life until the foreign devil English invaded is the same mystical Marxist national liberation gibberish we've heard so long applied to the Third World.

BTW, I am not a Unionist. I want an independent and sovereign England. As it is, England is nothing but an abstract federal district for the UK.

20 posted on 05/25/2012 3:23:08 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

“It is England rather than Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, whose interests get subsumed in the current Union (see my earlier post above about the lack of a specifically English assembly of any kind while Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each have one).”

England is the dominant partner; if they lost out in it they’d drop it like Jamaica or Uganda.

“Not all Scots are Celtic.”

Most are; there are some Pakistanis in Ireland, but it is by and large a Celtic country. They didn’t grow up from the land; they migrated across Europe until there was further to go. That is why they are found in the northwest corners of Spain and France as well.

“As it is, England is nothing but an abstract federal district for the UK.”

I agree, and that is why in the past I’ve raised issues about these “districts” fielding “national teams” for the World Cup. California is more of a country than any of them; if we have to play as the “United States” make them play as the “United Kingdom”.


21 posted on 05/25/2012 3:35:47 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

“English national identity has been completely subsumed into British identity”

“English identity” is like “American identity”; they are not as distinct ethnically as Scots, Welsh, or Irish. They’ve all mixed with others to some degree, but England probably more than most. They went from Celtic to Saxon to Norman, with Dane as well. I think it is harder to define “English” (except as the language of the Saxons).


22 posted on 05/25/2012 3:41:05 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

You are SO correct...England has a lot to gain by Scottish MPs leaving Westminster.


23 posted on 05/25/2012 3:56:40 PM PDT by Churchillspirit (9/11/2001. NEVER FORGET.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Scotland is the UK’s footrest? You don’t have a clue do you? The English are taken for granted in the UK. We have a serious democratic deficit in England, the Scotch and the Northern Irish (and to a lesser degree the Welsh) get to run their own affairs whilst still voting to impose health and social policies on England at Westminster. Or celtic ‘brethren’ have got themselves into the position of being Britain’s privileged citizens lording it over the majority, the English, who are second class British citizens thanks to devolution. As far as I’m concerned, celtic nationalism isn’t about independence for those countries, it is about England’s independence from its Celtic overlords, particularly the scotch, who, as Scotsman correctly implies, are over-represented in positions of power in London....


24 posted on 05/25/2012 4:17:36 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

The United Kingdom is a state, not a country.
Scotland, England, NI and Wales remain therefore countries.
They are countries that are a part of a larger state.

The football team argument therefore is a non-starter. Irrelevant.


25 posted on 05/25/2012 8:07:35 PM PDT by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman

Watching Scotland’s friendly with the US last night, the commentators discussed the problems with the “British” team that was to be fielded for the 2012 Olympics. The soccer organizations of Scotland & Wales told their players not to participate, as they felt it would jeopardize their independence in terms of FIFA. They fear that FIFA (which has more members than the UN) would consider them part of the larger country (and make them play as part of one).

A very valid concern; you’ll never convince countries that are at war with Britain that they’re individual countries.


26 posted on 05/27/2012 3:13:50 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

“the Scotch and the Northern Irish (and to a lesser degree the Welsh) get to run their own affairs whilst still voting to impose health and social policies on England at Westminster.”

I hear the same complaints from “British” Canadians (a misleading term, as “former Commonwealth Canadians” would be more fitting given the umbers from Asia) about the Quebecois; the fact is that in both cases they would be much smaller, insignificant countries without them.

“it is about England’s independence from its Celtic overlords, particularly the scotch, who, as Scotsman correctly implies, are over-represented in positions of power in London”

I’d believe that if there was a Scottish monarch on the money, or if they used the flag of Wales (the best of the bunch in terms of flags), or if reunion with Ireland was on a ballot in their six northern counties.


27 posted on 05/27/2012 3:23:07 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
a Scottish monarch on the money, or if they used the flag of Wales (the best of the bunch in terms of flags), or if reunion with Ireland was on a ballot in their six northern counties.

Even the criteria you somewhat arbitrarily select are not particularly sound. You may have overlooked the doubtless uncomfortable (for you) facts that the Union began when a Scottish monarch (James Sixth and First)was invited to take over the English throne; and that the present constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland were endorsed in a referendum by the people of the island of Ireland as a whole, both the North and the Republic.

28 posted on 05/27/2012 4:38:44 AM PDT by Winniesboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Winniesboy

Yes, and natives sold Manhattan for $24; the deals those people made died with them.

I don’t think the native Irish in the north put much stock in what southerners (who did win their independence) signed away for their northern kinsmen); a civil war was fought in Ireland over the question, so I don’t think the betrayal of the north was very popular. Ireland will get its six counties because of their birthrate; England clung to the industry in the north, but that died decades ago - it is now an economic albatross around their necks.


29 posted on 05/27/2012 4:54:55 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper
As long as the Scots don't mess with their Whisky!


30 posted on 05/27/2012 6:00:19 AM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called 'gay' instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Contrary to popular belief, the Monarchy is more Scottish than English. The Queen’s mother was more Scottish than her father was English, the QM was born at Glamis Castle and was the daughter of a Scottish Earl, and in case you hadn’t noticed, the whole family spend more time poncing around at Balmoral in kilts than they do at Buckingham Palace, which they have long been known to dislike. And don’t forget that it was a Scottish King who inherited the English throne, not the other way around.

The Welsh are a proud people, but they aren’t quite as nationalistic as the Scots. They are more likely to see themselves as British, but even those who don’t for the most part don’t want independence because they know that the UK public sector is a major employer there.

As for Northern Ireland, they have devolution and the right to vote for parties that want re-union with Ireland. Unfortunately, most of them don’t believe in this, so we are stuck with them.
The English are taken for granted. The celts would go apes*it if they were treated like second-class British citizens the way we are. They have more democracy, greater control over their own affairs, and greater control over OUR affairs, which I wouldn’t mind if it was reciprocated, but it isn’t.
If these are the terms by which the union must be maintained, by granting them privileged status over the majority, I would rather we cut them loose, sadly, we won’t be asked, which is par for the course these days, so the question of whether the scotch shall continue to mooch off our taxes and rule over us or piss off and leave us to ourselves is only in their hands, not ours...


31 posted on 05/27/2012 10:08:22 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
"Ireland will get its six counties because of their birthrate; England clung to the industry in the north, but that died decades ago - it is now an economic albatross around their necks."

Britain wanted to give home rule to all of Ireland, it was the Protestants of the North who started to import guns to resist anyone, including the Crown, who tried to impose 'Rome Rule' on them. In any case, I doubt NI is going to be rushing to merge itself with the economic basket case that is the South....

32 posted on 05/27/2012 10:13:17 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
"Ireland will get its six counties because of their birthrate; England clung to the industry in the north, but that died decades ago - it is now an economic albatross around their necks."

Britain wanted to give home rule to all of Ireland, it was the Protestants of the North who started to import guns to resist anyone, including the Crown, who tried to impose 'Rome Rule' on them. In any case, I doubt NI is going to be rushing to merge itself with the economic basket case that is the South....

33 posted on 05/27/2012 10:13:56 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson