The Real PapaBear

OK, so, in other words (I'm wary about using quotation marks, so I'll just paraphrase), the votes from Scotland are to be used to help the minority in England defeat the legitimate democratic choice of the majority in England? That's actually kinda not very nice, Thinker. You may want to mull that one over.

"we" made no such decision. The majority of people were against the war. The UK government made the decision to go to war based on a lie. that's why I said "UK involvement" and "UK history" Where do you see it separated into "a Scottish/English thing"? The distinction I made is between the criminal actions of a UK government and the probable actions of an independent Scottish government. *You* are the one confusing England and the UK, not me.

Well first of all, Andy got into a lot of hot water recently by applying quotation marks *correctly*. If Zappa sees what you've done with your invented quote placed in quotation marks, well, I can't imagine what he'll do to you, but it won't be pleasant. Zaaappppaaaaa!!! Ok, to your point, which if I understand it is this: You wish to remain part of the UK primarily because doing so is good for everyone in the UK and that Scotland leaving the UK would be financially detrimental to the people of England and elsewhere. Ergo, we are contributing more to UK coffers than we are taking out - because if we took out more than we contributed, then our leaving would result in a financial benefit to the rest of the UK. As you have argued, the rest of the UK would be worse off, so that must mean we are net contributors. Good, so, we are agreed (along with the University of Oxford and the UK Exchequer, incidentally) that Scotland contributes more to Westminster than it receives. So much for the 'No' campaign telling us that we couldn't afford independence and so much for the London media telling us that they are the ones subsidising us. The next logical step in your case (that we help the rest of the UK by subsidising it) is that you are happy for Scots to have less in order that the others have more. That is very charitable of you and very magnanimous. {Actually, the desire to look after the common weel is a particularly Scottish value and not one largely shared in the more individualistic south of this island. What used to be jewels in the British crown, the free health care and free higher education are now only to be found in their original form in Scotland <cough>thank you 8 years of SNP government</cough>. The more individualistically minded south is pushing through American style privatisation of health care at break-neck speed and has long since ensured that higher education will become the preserve of the few once again.} So far, we are agreed; We pay more in than we get out. Where we disagree is that by remaining within the UK, Scotland will actually help the 'outlying parts', i.e everything that is not the Home Counties. The inertia and inaction of the English regions over decades has allowed London to become the behemoth and cultural and financial drain that it is. The departure of Scotland from this collection of City State satellites, aka the UK, may just be what the rest of England needs to waken it up from its decline. If the north east of England, for example, looks at the benefits of Scottish independence just across the border, it may be just what they need to give them the motivation to demand more regional autonomy and development. The very fact that the poorer parts of the UK are in the state they are in shows that Scotland being in the UK doesn't help them in the slightest, even though it damages us. Sometimes you just have to accept there is a limit to your powers. Scotland is too small to have a big influence on England and its regions. It's up to them to get their own house in order (and this is what my 'irrelevant' remark referred to). In closing, two remarks. First, the presence or otherwise of North Sea Oil is not something which factors into my sense of national identity. (Speaking personally, I would be happier to see a distribution of oil reserves which takes into account that they were discovered when we were the UK. 90% of gas and 100% of oil is in Scottish waters and we would be entitled, legally, to it all. I'd be happy to split it 70/30 as a gesture of goodwill. With the development of renewables, we'd have more than we need anyway.) What you seem to believe, along with a good many No voters, is that the independence movement and Yes vote is based on greed and a wish to keep Scotland's oil for itself. It's really not. Oh, there will be the odd one who is focused only on the economic benefits of Independence, but for the vast majority of Yes voters, the reason for voting yes is simply that Scotland is different from England and we want to run our own country in our own way according to our own priorities from our own capital city with decisions made by people we elect; We have sufficiently different priorities and sufficiently different values to much of England to suggest that we'd be better doing things in the way we want. England is in thrall to privatisation of health and social services; Scotland believes these belong in social ownership. England is mesmerised by the United States and will prositute herself at the drop of a hat; Scotland regard American imperialism much more sceptically. England is increasingly anti-European and insular; Scotland far more internationalist and open. England is increasingly anti-immigration; immigration to Scotland is vital. I could go on. Second, the UK involvement in Iraq amounts to a war crime. Simple as that. It is a shameful chapter in UK history - one of many - and it is something that an independent Scotland wouldn't have gone near with a bargepole. In fact, Alex Salmond was the first person to stand up in the Commons and condemn it for what it was. If your priority is the UK and if you are willing the sacrifice Scotland for the benefit of the UK, then that's an opinion I can respect whilst disagreeing with. I won't pretend to be able to understand it; I don't understand how you can witness decades of Scotland being marginalised, misused, lied to and disregarded and still pledge your allegience to the people doing it - but if that's your opinion; fair enough.

See? See? All the cool kids are lining up at the Yes counter. Still time to join us, bud.

A friend of mine was born in Edinburgh in the final month of his father's posting there in the mid 1950s. He returned to Switzerland almost before he could open his eyes. He has a British passport, because at that time you got one automatically if you were born here. Since then he has grown up, lived and worked in Switzerland and has returned to Scotland on holiday only once in the ensuing 60 years. You're telling me he's British?

A point which actually explains why we did become the antithesis of Celtic's shamrockery. It was the arrival of the Belfast shipbuilders in the early part of the century which saw the British/Protestant/Unionist ethos being fundamentally associated with the club. And why? Because this NI sub-culture, whilst akin, was not exactly the same as the dominant Scottish culture and so they probably felt the need to show themselves to be more British/Protestant/Unionist than we were. Add to that the conflict they had left behind and you get teh anti-Irish anti-Catholic thing which scarred our club for the best part of the century.

All due respect, Zappa, that's just nonsense. In the paragraph under discussion, D'art had three ideas. An introductory idea (times change) followed by a core proposition (Rangers continue to represent his values) followed by a conclusion (the values of society have changed). Andy quoted verbatim from ideas 1 and 3. He shortened the quotes but omitted nothing of importance from the ideas. He, properly, placed those quotes in quotation marks. Andy's bone of contention with D'arts article was with the central idea of RFC representing certain values (idea 2). When dealing with this he did not use quotation marks, he did not seek to mislead or misrepresent and he did not use the quotes out of context. What he did was to use a common debating technique of using an opponents own precis and conclusion to attack the central idea. Technically, Andy's attack on D'art's piece was of a good technical standard. If you're going to start proscribing how we are allowed to debate (providing of course that there is no abuse malice or dishonesty) then you're going to have to employ a sub-editor to keep up. I'm available at reasonable rates and time and a half at weekends

It kinda is true, pete. The situation varies from country to country within the EU but in the UK, (from which both England and Scotland would presumably take their citizenship requirements after independence) any child has the right of citizenship if one of their parents is a British citizen or legally settled in the country. Thus if Thinker's child was born in England, that child would be entitled to English Citizenship since Thinker is settled there. The wonderful thing, well one of the many wonderful thing about Scotland after independence, is that anyone living here at the time of independence, anyone born here or anyone with close family here will be entitled to Scottish Citizenship - see us? see inclusive? However, that wasn't really the nub of the point I was making. Irrespective of whether Big Eck gives Thinker's wean a Scottish passport, Thinker's wean, having been born, raised and schooled in England will be English if he decides to continue living there. For example, my Wife's daughter came to Scotland from France when she was a toddler. She grew up, went school, University and employment in Scotland. She is completely as Scottish as you or I, although her passport says French.

Aye, a union in much the same way as Terry Waite was united with a radiator in Beirut.

it's not so much flawed as irrelevant. If, by Scotland declaring independence, the fortunes of English people outside the M25 worsen, then that's something that they need to address themselves. The unwillingness of the rest of England to bring London and the south East to heel has been one of the major causes of social and cultural inequality in England. It's their problem to deal with; not ours.

So, if I understand this, the reason that you're not providing examples of "anti-english" statements and of "plenty of scaremongering by the Yes campaign" is not hat you can't come up with any, but rather that if you do provide some, I'll just say they aren't true? Deary me.

There you go again. making nonsensical statements, with no proof to back them up. You know, if you make statements of opinion as if they were facts, and are then unable to back up those statements it only makes you look foolish. I ask, more in hope than expectation, but give us examples of the "plenty of scaremongering by the Yes campaign". If this scaremongering has been so plentiful, examples will be easy to find, surely. I asked you previously to provide one single example of the anti-Englishness you claimed was being pushed by the Yes campaign. Just one. I haven't heard back from you on that. Any chance of an example - just one, will do - any time soon?

Why on earth would you stop caring about people because of where they live or which passport they hold? It's not difficult. If a child is born in Scotland, irrespective of his or her parentage, grows up in Scotland and chooses to live in Scotland, that child is Scottish. If a child is born elsewhere,. England for example, of Scottish parentage, grows up in England and wishes to continue to live in England, then that person is English. To suggest otherwise is to follow the germanic model of the bloodline determining you nationality - which is not a pleasant thing at all. If we become independent and your children continue to live in England after the age of majority, then I have bad news for you mate; you have fathered Englishmen. You're still allowed to love them, though.

Dart, or can I call you Machiavelli?, that's pure evil. By doing that a) we get to take the moral high ground, b) show we're "bigger on our knees than they are on their feet" and c) get to lord it over the Jambos for the rest of time. Love it.

One last time. *why* is it relevant?

For the life of me I can't see where he has misquoted you. As far as I can see, when he uses quotation marks, it is around what you actually said. He's not making stuff up or attempting to misrepresent your viewpoint; he is simply quoting what you wrote in order to present a counter argument. Perfectly legitimate. Maybe you can explain what you mean when you say (in post 72): "the third part again in quote - I never even said in the original article - that is purely poetic licence on your part Andy. " because it seems to me, what you're denying having said, you *did* say in the original article: line 6; " And it still does today, no matter how society moves on to other things."

self-referential irony, mate. form of humour. google it.

What does SNP policy about the Queen have to do with Independence? Do you not understand yet that after independence there will be other parties in government? Whether the SNP wishes to keep the Queen or give away free peanut butter sandwiches has got nothing at all to do with whether Scotland should be independent.

So no comment on the images then?

Far from being a weak argument, it's the strongest you could make. You are quite simply happy with the way things are and have no desire to change. Fine - there's no argument against that. If you had based your No vote on the usual nonsensical arguments put forward, 'we couldn't survive economically', ' we're too wee', 'the Queen likes us', 'bad things would happen', then it would be possible to argue why each of those isn't true." I can't argue with: "no thanks, perfectly happy with the way things are". I can, however, lament the fact you are a feeble-minded, lackey to the will of our English Overlords and that you are betraying your children's future and that generations of Scots yet unborn will curse your name in perpetuity.

Ok, to summarise. 1. You want to keep the monarchy because the American election system is corrupt. Why not, being a European, look at similar European countries? Is the German system or the French system corrupt? 2. You want to keep the monarchy because "the Royals bring in millions from tourism". No. 1 tourist destination in the world? The Republic of France. The Republic of Italy is 5th The Republic of Germany is 6 and the UK is 8th. I'm keen to know two things; 1. why tourists would stop coming to gawp at castles just because the queen no longer lives in them. (Have you ever tried to visit the palace of Versailles?) 2. How Scotland befits from people coming to visit Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle? Lifted this from 'yahoo answers' as it was voted the best reply: "The major benefit of the Monarchy is they bring in massive amounts of tourism. Millions of tourists come to England to see the Monarchy per year, and many shops in London thrive on this tourism. If the monarchy was abolished, it is highly likely that Many london shops would fail, and London's economy would flop. Also, the Monarchy is insepereably linked with the English Nobility, and the many grand Noble houses across the county also attract huge numbers of tourists, both from within the UK and other countries. It would be diffiult to maintain the Nobility without the Monarchy, so losing the Monarchy would also lose the money brought in by visitors to nobility houses." Yep. 3. You want to keep the monarchy because the Queen has no powers and people elect the Parliament to run the country. If you simply want a powerless symbol as your head of state, why not elect an ampersand? 4. You want to keep the monarchy to give Her Maj a country escape from the pressures of doing fuck all for the rest of the year and so that prince Charles has someone other than his plants to patronise? I'm going to show you two images. Guess which one came first. http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.brynashley.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Cinderall-vs.-Royals.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brynashley.com/royal-wedding-vs-cinderella&h=550&w=469&sz=59&tbnid=0AlaNfYVTqszgM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=80&zoom=1&usg=__wHqlV3dHC3RnS_nmAgPrM03PisY=&docid=5bJD-D7JsgYrhM&sa=X&ei=S834UeLUF7Cf7ga99YHYCQ&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAA&dur=13667

Why not? - and, be warned; this is your last chance to say something....anything... sensible. If you fail to cut the mustard on this one, you and me are over. finished. done.