Scotch Independence - the countdown

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should Scotland be an Independent Country?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
No, I don't agree with most of what you say there regarding Scotch Tories and the E&W Tories and the DUP. The Scots and the English parties were almost identical, and the Scotch Tories supplied 2 Prime Ministers and a Winston Churchill as a Tory minister. The reason for that was because of their similarity, their shared ethos and conservative politics.
 
Is anyone going to watch the debate between Fatman and Captain Dahling?

More bluster and avoidance of the main issues.

I'm not watching it. I am voting No.

The SNP are even worse than Better Together for avoiding what will happen if we the public vote for Independence.

A vote for No is the only sensible vote.
 
CITIZEN SNIPS said:
No, I don't agree with most of what you say there regarding Scotch Tories and the E&W Tories and the DUP. The Scots and the English parties were almost identical, and the Scotch Tories supplied 2 Prime Ministers and a Winston Churchill as a Tory minister. The reason for that was because of their similarity, their shared ethos and conservative politics.
Click to expand...

Totally fair enough - they were referred to as the "Tories" in Scotland and I was being somewhat pedantic but they did studiously avoid the word Conservative in favour of Liberal.

I didn't know Churchill was a member - I knew he addressed their conference but didn't put two and two together (Enoch Powell defected to the Ulster Unionists at some point as well, didn't he?).

I still contest, though, that a British Conservative Party without the backing of the kirk and the lodge wouldn't have been succesful in Scotland as the Unionist Party were and it suited the Conservatives to have the Jocks and Paddies vote on a sectarian basis.

I was reading that book last night (standard Scottish textbook for Modern Studies in the 90s I believe) and there was something else I didn't know.

ST probably knew this but I didn't.

The Liberals passed a motion for devolution in 1913 but it never came to pass because of the war.

Politics 100 years ago was so different to today - as were ideas of nationalism and duty.

When people debate WWI now they seem to fall into the lions led by lambs camp or the bloody waste of life for the sake of the aristocracy camp.

I think it was neither - people had "war fever" as it was called and rushed to join up which seems mental to us but as one old Tommy on that thing on TV said last night "we thought it would be a 6 month holiday"
 
I've got eight dongs said:
Totally fair enough - they were referred to as the "Tories" in Scotland and I was being somewhat pedantic but they did studiously avoid the word Conservative in favour of Liberal.

I didn't know Churchill was a member - I knew he addressed their conference but didn't put two and two together (Enoch Powell defected to the Ulster Unionists at some point as well, didn't he?).

I still contest, though, that a British Conservative Party without the backing of the kirk and the lodge wouldn't have been succesful in Scotland as the Unionist Party were and it suited the Conservatives to have the Jocks and Paddies vote on a sectarian basis.

I was reading that book last night (standard Scottish textbook for Modern Studies in the 90s I believe) and there was something else I didn't know.

ST probably knew this but I didn't.

The Liberals passed a motion for devolution in 1913 but it never came to pass because of the war.

Politics 100 years ago was so different to today - as were ideas of nationalism and duty.

When people debate WWI now they seem to fall into the lions led by lambs camp or the bloody waste of life for the sake of the aristocracy camp.

I think it was neither - people had "war fever" as it was called and rushed to join up which seems mental to us but as one old Tommy on that thing on TV said last night "we thought it would be a 6 month holiday"
Click to expand...

That's a ****ing rambling mess of a post ya spastic <laugh>
 
I've got eight dongs said:
Totally fair enough - they were referred to as the "Tories" in Scotland and I was being somewhat pedantic but they did studiously avoid the word Conservative in favour of Liberal.

I didn't know Churchill was a member - I knew he addressed their conference but didn't put two and two together (Enoch Powell defected to the Ulster Unionists at some point as well, didn't he?).

I still contest, though, that a British Conservative Party without the backing of the kirk and the lodge wouldn't have been succesful in Scotland as the Unionist Party were and it suited the Conservatives to have the Jocks and Paddies vote on a sectarian basis.
Click to expand...

The Scotch Tories were separate because the Scots have historically clung to their identity, through ejucayshun, legal systems, schools and religion. The Scotch Tories provided 2nr Prime ministers, Andrew Bonar-Law (the only PM not born in the UK) and another whose name escapes me and I can't be arsed looking up.

Religion probably played a part but as I often say, you can't judge history with today's values and what was perfectly sensible 100 years ago can seem totally bizare in today's light.

I've got eight dongs said:
I was reading that book last night (standard Scottish textbook for Modern Studies in the 90s I believe) and there was something else I didn't know.

ST probably knew this but I didn't.

The Liberals passed a motion for devolution in 1913 but it never came to pass because of the war.

Politics 100 years ago was so different to today - as were ideas of nationalism and duty.

When people debate WWI now they seem to fall into the lions led by lambs camp or the bloody waste of life for the sake of the aristocracy camp.

I think it was neither - people had "war fever" as it was called and rushed to join up which seems mental to us but as one old Tommy on that thing on TV said last night "we thought it would be a 6 month holiday"
Click to expand...

I think I had the same book. It basically argued that if it wasn't for WWI, Scotland would've been independent but the spin then was to blame nationalism for the European war and the bloodshed in Ireland and the rest they say is history.
 
So.....did any **** watch the big debate?

I didne.

I refuse to put myself through 2 hours of boring ****e with ****s talking gibberish.

I watched the Rangers game on Alba instead. :emoticon-0101-sadsm
 
I watched it and, cos I'm boring, I pure liked it. I like Scotland being politically aware the way it has been the last 18 months or so.

Anyway, the big news during the debate was that, although she only follows about 50 folk, Meg Lauder started following me on Twitter <laugh> <stauner>

Like, the real Meg Lauder <laugh>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back