1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Freedom for Scotland

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by samuelstein, Jul 15, 2012.

  1. Should Scotland break away from British rule?
  2. Should Scotland break away from British rule?
  3. Mibbes aye and mibbes naw.[​IMG]
  4. They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom - Mel Gibson
  5. Si N. Tiffick

    Si N. Tiffick Occasional commenter

  6. Si N. Tiffick

    Si N. Tiffick Occasional commenter

    But then, given recent events, the SNP may call a referendum, then they might just ignore the results and land us with a separate Scotland anyway...
  7. socrates82

    socrates82 Occasional commenter

    The topic header and the premise above are not accurate IMO.

    "Freedom" from what exactly?

    And Scottish people have as much input into "British rule" as anyone else in the democracy that is the modern UK.

    "Should Scotland separate from the rest of the UK?" or "should Scotland be an independent nation?" are more valid ways of stating the option.
  8. Scottish people have as much input into British rule as anyone else?
    No, Scottish people have more input. We are, as stated in the Act of Union, and supported by court decisions, a sovereign people. The monarch, and the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are subject to the settled will of the Scottish people. Not the other way round.
    Our supine acceptance of decisions of the Westminster parliament in the past, does not and cannot change this fact.
    The concept of "reserved powers" is contrary to the Act of Union.
    The discussions and decisions of committees of the House of Commons, and the House of Lords are irrelevant to the content, or outcome of the referendum on Scottish independence.
    We shall look at England, with its shareholder profit economy, its kettling metropolitan police, its prescription charges, its profit driven private companies, its so called public schools, its academies, its racism, and its nuclear weapons and we will say "No. We do not wish to be like you."
    On the question of independence, if Mr Cameron should decide to tell us "No." We will reply that he is only the Prime Minister.
    But we are the people. And we say "Yes."
    Love, Sam

  9. davieee

    davieee Occasional commenter

    What is supine about respecting democracy? Also, Scots have never been slow to voice an opinion, the poll tax being one issue.
    in what way?
    You might find that the coalition government may just call Salmond's bluff and legislate for similarly worded referendum. With opinion polls saying that support for independence is currently at 30% Sthe SNP will get trounced. If the turnout is over 45% it will have more validity that the referendum for devolution. Everyone will call it democracy except the SNP yoof, like yourself, who will invent some form of grievance and call it"interfering Westminster" or suchlike.
    Every business in Scotland operates a profit economy and there is nothing wrong with making a profit. I make a profit every month and put it in the bank to go on holiday. Does that make my kids shareholders?
    "Its kettling Metropolitan Police" Don't kid yourself that Strathclyde or Lothian & Borders have not been trained in this too.
    "Its Racism" Ho, ho the SNP is one of the biggest racist and parochial partys in the UK. They want to leave the UK but keep the pound. They don't want to "subsidise Westminster" but when Scotland joins the Euro, which they must do after 2 years of joining the EU, the SNP would be happy to subsidise Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.
    The Scots are the people, and we will say NO to separatism. I just don't believe the SNP will accept that.
  10. Rumour/news today that the question will be in two parts: Should Scotland be independent? But IF NOT, would you want greater devolved powers? This suggestion from Curtice at Strathclyde, apparently to satisfy Cameron's demand for a clear question. So do you want to have your cake, and if so, do you want to eat it too? :)
  11. davieee

    davieee Occasional commenter

    To me a second question is an escape clause for the SNP. They have campaigned for independence and are now realising that it is going to be rejected by a comfortable majority.
    The SNP have tried to mitigate this by pledging to retain the monarchy when most of their supporters want to get rid of it, they are just about to ditch their opposition to NATO membership despite most of their supporters actually wanting an independent Scotland to leave it. They want to join the EU but keep the pound irrespective of that fact that new entrants to the EU have to adopt the Euro after a given time. The SNP want to leave the UK but still demand a seat on the BoE monetary policy committee.
    The SNP are a joke who are trying to ditch every policy or principle they ever had to win the referendum.
    Remember this is a party that have been slashing education budgets and teacher numbers up and down the country since 2007 and long before the economic recession started.
    As someone who voted for devolution, I am extremely disappointed by it and by Holyrood itself. Personally i'd vote to shut it down before I gave it more powers so for me its No and (possibly) No
  12. davieee wonders why "reserved powers" are contrary to the Act of Union. OK let's go back a bit before that Act - to the union of the Crowns. There wasn't one. Once England's Elizabeth I died in 1603 the English crown was inherited by James VI of Scotland. 2 Crowns, both held by one person.
    Now, the Arbroath declaration (still constitutionally valid even though written in the 14th century, states that if the people of Scotland don't like what the monarch does, they can elect another one.
    Clearly, people power transcends that of monarch.
    Now the Claim of right (April 1689) still constitutionally valid states that the people of Scotland are the supreme authority.
    It's pretty clear - that prior to the Act of Union, the Scots people are the final arbiters. Not the monarch, not the parliament.
    Nothing in the Act of Union changed that.
    Even without the case of MacCormick vs Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396 SLT 255) which confirmed that "the priciple of umlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctly English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law" (Lord Guthrie) it is abundantly clear that the Scots can have any damn referendum they like, with or without Mr Cameron's approval.
    To that extent, therefore, we are free already. Pusillanimous, but free to end the union if we want to. We need nobody's permission. Let's just do it. This is our country, not Mr Camerons's, nor Mr Milliband's, nor Mr Salmond's. It is ours. Can we have it back? Soonish?

  13. .

    Aye and what would we want to that for? So that we can hone our arrogant tendencies and develop those very traits we have despised in others?

    How better could it be under Mr Salmond?. Go team GB that's what I say! Or can we still be part of GB if we vote 'yes' - like we can keep all those other things?
  14. Hmm.. Why do we want our country back? Well, maybe because it's ours. Taking ownership and control of our country doesn't seem to me an opportunity to "hone our arrogant tendencies." What's that about?
    Our country has been run as a source of
    - cannon fodder
    - cheap labour
    - land (grouse, deer, hare, pigeons etc, for the shooting of; sheep for the grazing of, etc)
    - Labour votes
    - deep water for nuclear submarines
    Enough is enough. This is our land.
    We decide. Not Salmond, Cameron or Milliband.
    Regards, Sam.
    ps Where I live and teach, the very phrase "Team GB" is emetic. The olympic legacy will be hard to find throughout most of Scotland.

  15. cochrane1964

    cochrane1964 New commenter

    25% of our land mass is owned by incognito trusts from which we cannot find out who benefits from the ownership. Large areas of land are owned by people and trusts who class it as 'sporting estates' or 'forestry' areas to ensure a 0% rateable value. This artificially drives up the price of available land for the young and so they cannot invest in Scotland's future. Do you feel confident that Westminster will change this after over 300 years of banditry by the nobility and the new nobility?

  16. 1) There are no legal opinions - not one - which contradict the supremacy of the Scottish people in any question of deciding the form of government which suits them best. Check again. The number is zero. Not your "3 contrary to it."
    2) You have the right to be wrong if you choose. You are.
    3) I was born in Royal Leamington Spa. As such very, very unlikely to be taken in by "anti-English bile."
    I am Scottish. I have lived here since 1957. I have 55 years of experience of being a Scot. I see where Mr Cameron is taking England and Wales. Scots do not wish the profit motive to be a factor in the provision of health services. They do not wish to harbour weapons of mass destruction. They do not want French companies supplying doctors to say that terminally ill people are fit for work. They do not want glib public schoolboys with a fevered sense of entitlement to be able to tell us what is good for us. We know what is good for us.
    It's decent work, and decent pay. It's the dignity of labour, and providing for our loved ones.
    It's not outsourcing to India, it's not maximising returns to shareholders, it's control of our own lives and our own country.
    Will the SNP help us do this as a future government of a free Scotland? Probably not. I personally am not impressed with their education policies, centralised police or lack of leadership on the NATO issue. What I do know is that we must be free to choose.
    England and Wales will be Tory forever.
    Scotland has not been Tory since Thatcher.
    What will it be in future? Who knows. We need to be free to find out.
  17. davieee

    davieee Occasional commenter

    No-one is disagreeing that the electorate of any referendum will decide it's outcome that but it is the government of the day that decides how, what, when etc. Scotland is currently a full member of the UK (indeed the last 3 Prime Ministers were either born here or at least one of their parents were) and most accepted legal opinion suggests that the power to legislate for that currently lies with the Westminster parliament. The wee Scotchlanders love this as it allows them to create a sense of grievance. This is tiresome to normal folk who will reject separatism out of hand.
    As they say, "its all about opinion"
    I was born in Glasgow (I fail to see why place of birth comes into it) and, as such very, very unlikely to be taken in by "anti-English bile .
    Apart from the comment about the NHS its sanctimonious rubbish.
    If you ask people "do you think nuclear weapons are good, 95%+ will say no. If you ask them "do you think we should keep them bearing in mind the emerging threats from places like Iran, North Korea or Syria" I reckon there would be sizeable majoirty to keep them. Again, opinion and how a question is framed.
    (BTW imagine panic if the Israelis had't bombed the Syrian reactor in 2007.)
    The next part is mostly a xenophobic and nationalistic diatribe against foreign people similar to what appeared in 1930s Germany. Are you suggesting that caring for the elderly is the preserve of Scottish people or that English people cannot?
    I have no doubt that Scotland will decide on its future and that its future will be to remain within the United Kingdom, the only thing is whether the defeated bravehearts will be able to live with themselves in a free democracy.
    Either way, i'm off to congratulate Team GB and watch whats left of the closing ceremony.
    Rule Britannia!!!
  18. cochrane1964

    cochrane1964 New commenter

    Just noticed that the main thrust if Gordon Brown's plea was 'you are only 4% worse off being a Scot in the Union!'

    Brilliant G - keep them coming!
  19. cochrane1964

    cochrane1964 New commenter

    Why not give it to people who can use it to build a future?
    So you are quite happy subsidising the absent rich?
  20. davieee

    davieee Occasional commenter

    On balance the current situation is not ideal however the notion that governments can just take property off of people without redress or compensation is unacceptable nonsense. Who pays for the "re-distribution"? Also taking your proposal a couple of stages further does it become the norm to seize second homes?

    of course not, i'm not happy subsidising anyone, but i'm not going to persecute anyone simply for being born into a different environment from me.

Share This Page