Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonRoad
There wasn't much debate about amongst the general population 300 years ago.
As for your second point I can only assume that you've created anagrams in your head to leap to that assumption.
|
The point about that particular argument, is that Scotland as you experience it is entirely a product of the Union. In order to answer your friend's question honestly, you would first have to postulate what Scotland would be like had it not entered political union in 1707 (and also what England would be like).
The question has been posted repeatedly all over the internet for months now but it is polemical. It assumes that had the union never happened, Scotland and England would be exactly as they are, except governed separately. And almost every version of it that I have seen has been accompanied by a great long screed of all the perceived ills of the UK, in extreme and, IMO, highly distorted detail.
Ultimately it's just another version of the wife beater question. Unanswerable, and best left to one side in any serious consideration of the issues.
---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
I have seen the question before about would Scotland vote Yes to joining the Union and really find it very insulting. It's a slap in the face to everyone else in it and the history behind it.
|
This is one of the as-yet unconsidered dimensions of this whole debate. Whether the result is yes or no - but especially if it is a yes - Scotland is going to have to continue to deal with an England that a significant chunk of its politically active population has spent the last 2 years slandering to utterly outrageous degrees. If separation negotiations are necessary, a lot of goodwill will be required for the Nats to get even half of what they've promised the masses in their "white paper". However, thanks to the Nats' own campaign, goodwill is in extremely short supply.