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

Skip to comments.

Will the Union see its 300th birthday?
The Telegraph ^ | 10/25/06 | Alan Cochrane

Posted on 10/25/2006 12:32:39 AM PDT by bruinbirdman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: Mobile Vulgus

Keen as I am for the Jocks to stand on their own socialist feet without relying on the English tax-payer, I wouldn't hold your breath for independence.

There are 129 members of the Scottish parliament and only 25 of those are members of the SNP. The scots are pretty reluctant to vote SNP because they know it's going to hit them very hard in the pocket, which is the most sensitive part of a scotsman!

I suspect they will continue with their age-old routine of biting the hand that feeds them - they don't like the English but they are more than happy to receive $2000 per year from each and every English tax-payer to keep them in their socialist public over-spending heaven. . . . . :-)


21 posted on 10/25/2006 4:22:52 AM PDT by AngloSaxonChristian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AngloSaxonChristian

You put it better than I.

The Scottish have fought alongside the English against Hitler and Napoleon.

However in today's tax-crushed England there will be a lot of dry eyes if they choose to "braveheart" their way out of the Union.


22 posted on 10/25/2006 4:25:35 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

'A split between Scotland and England would bring down English income tax by 8p in the pound (that's the astounding net cost of Scotland, including all oil receipts).

If it brings English tax down by that much, it would drive Scottish taxes up by (I guess) 24p in the pound to maintain the current level of public services.'

Sounds like a good plan to me! :D

Add to that the fact that New Labour will lose a huge part of it's power base and majority at Westminster and you have a winner! Can we organise it for tomorrow? :D


23 posted on 10/25/2006 4:25:58 AM PDT by AngloSaxonChristian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

Ahhhhhhhhh . . .

Welllllllll, in terms of all the Western, formerly Christian Nations . . .

NOT IF

--the Jihadi's have their way.
--the globalists have their way.
--satan has his way
--the hedonists have their way
--the socialists have their way
--the secular regressives have their way

. . .


24 posted on 10/25/2006 4:26:32 AM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

To continue...when Queen Anne died, Parliament passed over James Stewart and offerred the throne to George, Elector of Hanover. George's mother was a granddaughter of James I. George couln't speak English, but London society preferred a sophisticated German continental over a kilt-wearing Scotsman (the English thought of and treated Highlanders much in the same way they thought of and treated Mohawks). This sparked outrage in the north as Scotland had always been ruled by a Scotsman (even Edward Plantaganet's puppet, John Baliol, was Scottish). James Stewart, aka "The Old Pretender", raised an army, marched on London, and almost won. His son, Charles Stewart (Bonnie Prince Charley or the Young Pretender) tried a second time and did not succeed. The ousting of the Stewarts began the Scottish migration to America where they became heavily involved in another, more famous rebellion against the English: the American Revolution.


25 posted on 10/25/2006 4:30:22 AM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

'The Scottish have fought alongside the English against Hitler and Napoleon.'

They also fought alongside the French in what they call 'the auld alliance' in various attempts to destroy England. I've never met a frenchman who's ever heard of it mind, surprise, surprise!

The scots loved Britain when the empire filled their pockets, now we're a bit too right-wing for them and they want to plough their own left-wing furrow. Suits me.


26 posted on 10/25/2006 4:30:27 AM PDT by AngloSaxonChristian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf

"It finally time for all of us Scot to rise up and throw off the yoke of British oppresion and restore Bonnie Prince Charlie"

He's make an excellent monarch today, as much as he would have been as disaster as a monarch back in the day. After all, he's dead now, so he cannot do any harm as king.


27 posted on 10/25/2006 4:34:14 AM PDT by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

'The ousting of the Stewarts began the Scottish migration to America where they became heavily involved in another, more famous rebellion against the English: the American Revolution.'

They were a large part of both sides of the conflict actually. Scots and Irish soldiers made up nearly a third of the total British Army in your uprising and have made up a significant proportion of the Army for centuries and still do today.


28 posted on 10/25/2006 4:35:52 AM PDT by AngloSaxonChristian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: marsh_of_mists

Why would the Scots want anything to do with royalty, especially the English Royal Family?


29 posted on 10/25/2006 4:53:40 AM PDT by BW2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bobjam

To continue...when Queen Anne died, Parliament passed over James Stewart and offerred the throne to George, Elector of Hanover. George's mother was a granddaughter of James I. George couln't speak English, but London society preferred a sophisticated German continental over a kilt-wearing Scotsman (the English thought of and treated Highlanders much in the same way they thought of and treated Mohawks). This sparked outrage in the north as Scotland had always been ruled by a Scotsman (even Edward Plantaganet's puppet, John Baliol, was Scottish). James Stewart, aka "The Old Pretender", raised an army, marched on London, and almost won. His son, Charles Stewart (Bonnie Prince Charley or the Young Pretender) tried a second time and did not succeed. The ousting of the Stewarts began the Scottish migration to America where they became heavily involved in another, more famous rebellion against the English: the American Revolution.


To explain: Parliment passed over James Stewart on the grounds patly that he was a catholic, but mostly because the stewart dynasty had been an unmitigated disaster that had plunged the country into a series of vicious civil wars. Worst of all, Charles II, in all other respects a pretty decent monarch, had sold us out to the FRENCH. You can do a lot of things and be forgiven, but that IS beyond what anyone in England can tolerate.

The myth of "Bonnie Prince Charlie" is well overblown. It wasnt London society that preferred George, it was all of British society, Scots most of all. The Kilt wearing Scotsman was born in Italy and had a Polish accent. The English didnt like the highlanders true, but lowland Scots positively hated them. The 45 rebellion failed primarily for one reason and one reason only: lack of popular support. People did not want the stewarts back. A majority of Scotsmen didnt want them back.

Scots had been migrating to America for years before the clearances. They were heavily involved in a more famous rebellion, but not against the English. It was the British. There were plenty of Scottish regiments in the British army and plenty of Scotsmen who fought for the crown.


30 posted on 10/25/2006 5:17:37 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BW2221

British royal family.


31 posted on 10/25/2006 5:18:48 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus

Altho of English ancestry, I will mourn the loss of England, I hope the Scots and Irish have sense enough to break away from England, before they become over-run by moslims like Londistan.


32 posted on 10/25/2006 6:12:13 AM PDT by newcthem (Brought to you by the INFIDEL PARTY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newcthem

'Altho of English ancestry, I will mourn the loss of England, I hope the Scots and Irish have sense enough to break away from England, before they become over-run by moslims like Londistan.'

I think you'll find the 55,260,000 people of white anglo-saxon celtic christian ethnicity out of the 60m population of the UK are quite able to look after themselves against the 1.7m muslims. Sadly the US situation is not so clear cut with around 72% ethnicity described as above versus 15m+ illegals and 7m muslims.


33 posted on 10/25/2006 6:41:52 AM PDT by AngloSaxonChristian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
I don't think the Stuarts had Highland ancestry, or at least not much. They were descended from the first Stuart king who was a grandson on his mother's side of Robert Bruce. I believe their ancestry was mainly Lowland Scottish, English, and French. (The mother of Charles II and James VII & II was Henrietta Maria, the daughter of Henry IV of France and the person the colony of Maryland was named for.)

It may be true that the later efforts to regain the throne, after 1688, were supported mostly by Highlanders.

34 posted on 10/25/2006 9:27:06 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman
Yes, there is still a Commonwealth. But it's more of a quasi-official grouping now—much like the United Nations, except with less legitimacy.
35 posted on 10/25/2006 9:32:59 AM PDT by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AngloSaxonChristian
"The scots are British as well as the English "

I hadn't thought of it that way. It is the British Isles, afterall. That would include all of Ireland, too?

yitbos

36 posted on 10/25/2006 11:35:57 AM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds. " - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

A company of nations. I can't see how this could matter. It's not as if Scotland was never a nation.


37 posted on 10/25/2006 11:40:41 AM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngloSaxonChristian
"I wouldn't hold your breath for independence. There are 129 members of the Scottish parliament and only 25 of those are members of the SNP."

The point of the commentary was that the movement is well underway while the English sleep or could care less. Devolution was the first victory. Seems the nose is under the tent as the independence movement grows to the satisfaction of most.

yitbos

38 posted on 10/25/2006 11:41:19 AM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds. " - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AngloSaxonChristian
As an American with the good fortune of having ancestors who fled various countries both on and off the European Continent, including England, Scotland, Ireland and Germany, I must say that people today should concentrate on what brings them together, and not some stupid sense of lost ethnic heritage. It seems to me that countries that break up their unions usually fare worse after the split.

Now, I'm not talking globalism here. I'm a Yank through and through. If someone asks what nationality my last name is, I always answer "American". I'm just not in favor of people re fighting the War Between the States or the Jacobite Rebellion.
39 posted on 10/25/2006 11:52:02 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

You are correct, the House of Stuart was not a shining example of peace and tranquility. Then again neither was the House of Tudor nor the last 100 years of the Plantaganets. Combining the religious conflicts between Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans with the growing power of Parliament at the expense of the Crown, it is hard to imagine that any dynasty would have faired much better.

It is also true that there were a great many Anglophiles in Scotland- especially south of the Firth of Forth. Many of the Scottish nationalist rebellions could also be characterized as civil wars between the Anglophiles and Anglophobes- much like the Carolinas during the American Revolution.


40 posted on 10/25/2006 12:13:46 PM PDT by bobjam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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