There was never any good reason to assume that an independent Scotland wouldn't be economically viable. That was all pure scaremongering as far as i can see and damn near lost the No campaign for them. Nor would there have been any reason for vindictiveness had they voted for independence.

My reasons for being glad they didn't, are wholly to do with culture and history as well as a general feeling that we are stronger as a union than as entirely separate states.


No idea m'dear - but the reality is that the union was effectively originally a Scottish led project. The history of England and Scotland is full of conflict and war and unfairness, but there is a tendency for people, mainly outside the British Isles, to see the United Kingdom in terms of Robert the Bruce and William Wallace - in reality the UK was led in England, by Scots.

More like ex-pat, anti-haggis, pants wearing traitors, who outlawed my family under penalty of death, for 200 years.
If Scotland produced significant potatoes, the truth would be more evident. http://cellar.org/2012/bwekk.gif

From Bruce's link:

Salmond wanted to have full currency union with the rUK and have the Bank of England as lender of last resort.

When it was made plain by all three major parties at Westminster that it was out of the question, he threatened that Scotland would default on its debt.

That's pragmatic and moderate, isn't it?

Salmond is an economist by profession but it doesn't seem to have dawned on him that no other country or institution would lend money to a government disinclined to settle its debts.

Link again

Both sides did some posturing and there were veiled threats. I don't think any of that would have borne out, personally. Europe does not want to encourage fragmentation - which forcing Scotland to stay out of Europe surely would have done - it would have sent a dangerous message to others who want independence from nation states within Europe. What Europe needs is for those states to remain inside the union, even if they do so as separate states.

I also think that the whole matter of currency would have been resolved amicably- it would be in the best interests of both Scotland and the rUK to do so.

I think there's one really strong lesson from all of this: people should get a chance to decide. If a state within a state wants independence then the people of that state should have a chance to make that decision for themselves - whatever the outcome. Though there was bluster and bluff on both sides, it was a remarkably peaceful process - there was very little bad blood between the two sides at a grass roots level and the sheer number of people who got involved, on both sides of the debate - registering for the vote, discussingand debating the main issues - and then turning out to vote - mostly done in good humour is a credit to Scotland. However the vote went it would have been a lesson in democracy.

I want you Scots to go out there and give me 110%.
OK, coach.

hahahahahahahaha

too soon?
 

Groundskeeper Willie: It won't last. Brothers and sisters are natural enemies. Like Englishmen and Scots! Or Welshmen and Scots! Or Japanese and Scots! Or Scots and other Scots! Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland!

lol

Listening to the live coverage last night of the announcements of the results of the voting frequently included a number of rejected ballots and one of the reasons for rejection was voting yes and no on the same ballot.

As threats go, this one wasn't particularly veiled:


Scottish independence: Jim Sillars warns of 'day of reckoning'


Scotland expected to leave the UK but take with them the currency and the Bank of England's protection as lender of last resort.

Mr Salmond kept banging on about how it was 'Scotland's Pound as well'. No, Mr Salmond, it's the UK's Pound and when you leave the UK you leave its currency.

If bare faced cheek was an Olympic sport, he'd have been a gold medallist.

well - on the nationalisation issue I kind of agreed with them :P

That wasn't a threat against the rUK - that was about companies.

But then I am an old socialist!

*chuckles*

ahuh.

I am guessing tnen that your ancestors were part of the 45ers.

The 45 rebellion was not a battle between the English and the Scots - it was a battle between the old line of the monarchy (catholic) versus the new line ofthe monarchy (protestant). It was, at its core, a religious conflict and there were sympathies on both sides in England and Scotland. It gets played out as a nationalist conflict because the Highland Scots saw it that way - they were predominantly supporters of the original catholic line and saw the conflict in terms of a push for Scotish nationhood, though in fact what they were seeking was a return of the House of Stuart to the British throne. And there was certainly an element of English nationalism on the other side, who saw the conflict in terms of putting down a 'Scottish' rebellion. But there were catholic monarchists in England too (tories) and there were protestant suppporters of the new line in Scotland (mainly in the lowlands).

It was a vicious conflict - but one of the things that made it so vicious was that the catholic supporters of the old line drew military support from the French against the rest of Britain. This was right in the middle of the War of the Austrian Succession - with the British fighting the French on the continent. As far as many in Britain were concerned (Scottish and English)this was treason. British soldiers, French and Scottish were engaged in a bloody war against the French forces, and there was a general fear of a French invasion at this time.

The way the Jacobites were treated (and indeed the way catholics in general were treated) was truly terrible. The protestant majority were terrified of a return to an absolutist monarch in line with the other catholic monarchs of Europe, and in particular the French king - they had only recently shaken off absolutist monarchy in favour of a parliamentary system with the king at least partially subject to and his powers limited by that parliament. They also feared that the return of the House of Stuart would effectively allow a 'puppet' king for the French (given his reliance on French support) to sit on the British throne.

The Jacobites bringing in French support and inviting the French to invade England on their behalf heightened that sense of danger from catholic absolutism. The timing of it, when most of the British army was on the continent fighting the French and their allies heightened the sense of the Jacobites as traitors.

So much so that it heralded another two hundred years of anti-catholic sentiment in Britain.

In reality it wasn't even the Scotish Highlanders who invited the French in - it was the English Tories. They were ardent supporters of the old monarchy, both in terms of many of them being catholics but also in terms of being traditionalists (they had opposed the settlement that brought in the protestant line as a break from the natural line of succession).

Things are rarely as simple as they appear at first glance - doubly so for pretty much anything that happens in the British Isles :p


This gives a decent potted history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_rising_of_1745

The result of the uprising, whicih ended in the appallingly bloody Battle of Culloden was that the British government sought to ensure such an uprising never happened again. Because the Stuart powerbase in britain was primarily in the Highlands of Scotland, actions were very much focused on the Highland Scots - there was an act passed to remove the heritable jurisdictions from Scottish lords, and the wearing of traditional highland dress was prohibited.

It gets remembered in terms of a Scottish battle against the English for independent Scotland - but that's not what it was at the time. The Highland Scots were not attempting to break away from the union - they were supporting an attempt to restore the original Scottish monarchy to the British throne. Their support was garnered in part by calls to a sense of Scottish nationalism.

Everything I need to know about the Battle of Culloden I learned from reading the Outlander series. ;)

Bah http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif Those pussified lowlanders were nothing but a bunch of English Dandy wannabes, I tell you, traitors.

Nessie knows!

ha!

For anyone interested in the historical perspective this is a really interesting series on Youtube. Linda Colley, features in these and she is a brilliant historian (her book Britons: Forging the Nation, is one ofthe best accounts of how the union formed and the various tensions at its core - she also recently did a very good series on radio4 and an accompaying book called Acts of Union and Disunion. She's one of my favourite historians of Britishness and empire).

Each chapter of this series is only around 15 mins. I'll just post the first three - as they're probably the most relevant to this current conversation, but I highly recommend the whole series.

Part 1: Uniting the Kingdom



Part 2: The Jacobite Threat



Part 3: Becoming British