Jump to content

Scottish Politics 2011-2017


Recommended Posts

Omg I have just seen the blog.It verges on insanity.I cant read it without despairing at the level of education of these people. An independent country cannot feed itself.Europe will ban exports to Scotland.Salmond will sell your pension.The SNP will let Scotland be invaded by Romans....where will it end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • scottish skier

    8874

  • mountain shadow

    1528

  • skifreak

    1435

  • frogesque

    1306

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And that ignorant, offensive, rant sums up exactly why the YES campaign failed  

Good god. What a load of boarish spiteful bile from bad losers has been posted during the night. I actually dread to think how Scotland would be run if this is representative of how the yes vote behav

I'm disappointed in the lack of grace shown by some across the net in accepting this No vote. A complete lack of any empathy and understanding as to why fellow Scots didn't vote Yes.   I personally

Posted Images

Omg I have just seen the blog.It verges on insanity.I cant read it without despairing at the level of education of these people. An independent country cannot feed itself.Europe will ban exports to Scotland.Salmond will sell your pension.The SNP will let Scotland be invaded by Romans....where will it end.

 

See my correction. Seems it is an affiliate rather than the real BT, but I quite agree.

 

But then when you've read real stories like this, it's easy to be caught out.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/english-would-bomb-our-airports.17005697

 

EDIT, back to reality:

 

This apparently from the Herald News desk:

 

Look out for latest on No campaign funding row tomorrow from Robbie Dinwoodie.

 

Not sure this concerns the dirty money from Taylor or another large donation I heard they may have received. Herald really didn't take to kindly to being threatened with legal action over Taylor. I have a suspicion they are testing the pro-indy water with the Sunday Herald, whilst keeping things still more pro-union with the daily (although more and more balanced).

Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

See my correction. Seems it is an affiliate rather than the real BT, but I quite agree.

 

But then when you've read real stories like this, it's easy to be caught out.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/english-would-bomb-our-airports.17005697

 

Very amusing.

 

Personally i think it's much more likely if there's a yes vote that you'd sign some sort of military deal keeping English bases in Scotland ect..  I think we all know that if an invader steps foot in Scotland, England would bomb the crap out of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very amusing.

 

Personally i think it's much more likely if there's a yes vote that you'd sign some sort of military deal keeping English bases in Scotland ect..  I think we all know that if an invader steps foot in Scotland, England would bomb the crap out of them.

 

Ha ha, England's easier to invade. Scotland's a nightmare (certainly north of the forth-clyde); hence nobody has ever really succeeded. Romans, Norwegians, English... 

 

If e.g. the Germans do invade the SE, you can all retreat up here in the hills awaiting the opportunity to retaliate. They'll be lucky to make it past the southern uplands and even if they do, they'll never take the highlands. There will always be a dirk in the night, an ambush on a lonely road....

 

Afghanistan of Europe.

 

Whisky and beer is fine though.Posted Image

 

------------------

 

EDIT. Good article from Craig Murray on BBC bias.

 

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/04/bbc-the-new-hammer-of-the-scots/

 

BBC the New Hammer of the Scots

 

It astonishes me that even the use of the most obvious and blatant state propaganda techniques by the BBC do not result in any serious reaction from the political establishment. I repeat my call on Alex Salmond to request the intervention of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the OSCE to monitor the referendum and in particular to start immediately Phase 1 media monitoring. I am writing to Alex Salmond and to Chris Patten – both of whom at different times have been guests in my home -to seek a meeting on this issue of BBC bias.

 

I'm sort of with him on this, but at the same time don't think it will affect the result. Nobody I know - even those that support the union - doesn't think the BBC is pro-union and ridiculously biased for it. I guess the key's in the name.

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha, England's easier to invade. Scotland's a nightmare (certainly north of the forth-clyde); hence nobody has ever really succeeded. Romans, Norwegians, English... 

 

If e.g. the Germans do invade the SE, you can all retreat up here in the hills awaiting the opportunity to retaliate. They'll be lucky to make it past the southern uplands and even if they do, they'll never take the highlands. There will always be a dirk in the night, an ambush on a lonely road....

 

Afghanistan of Europe.

 

Whisky and beer is fine though.Posted Image

 

------------------

 

EDIT. Good article from Craig Murray on BBC bias.

 

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/04/bbc-the-new-hammer-of-the-scots/

 

BBC the New Hammer of the Scots

 

It astonishes me that even the use of the most obvious and blatant state propaganda techniques by the BBC do not result in any serious reaction from the political establishment. I repeat my call on Alex Salmond to request the intervention of the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the OSCE to monitor the referendum and in particular to start immediately Phase 1 media monitoring. I am writing to Alex Salmond and to Chris Patten – both of whom at different times have been guests in my home -to seek a meeting on this issue of BBC bias.

 

I'm sort of with him on this, but at the same time don't think it will affect the result. Nobody I know - even those that support the union - doesn't think the BBC is pro-union and ridiculously biased for it. I guess the key's in the name.

 

Shame they have planes these days but Scotland is safe with England next to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame they have planes these days but Scotland is safe with England next to it.

 

Or the other way around...

 

As for planes...

 

Planes have been really successful in Afghanistan. Russians managed to make it a peaceful part of the USSR; USA/GB have turned it into a stable beacon of democracy too now. Both mainly employing planes of course.

 

In Vietnam they worked a treat; USA managed to create a capitalist democracy after seeing off the commies quick smart. Likewise for Korea; it was the planes that won it, unifying the country.

 

And of course there's not forgetting the Germans managed to build a lasting empire using them too in WWI and II.

 

Oh no, hold on.

 

If you are not wanted, the locals will drive you out. Usually, it only takes a few years. Sometimes longer. Doesn't matter how big your plane is.Posted Image

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This has no doubt been posted before and I missed it. Apologies.

 

 

 

It has. No harm posting it again though. Good short film. The pro-union campaign tried to get it taken offline when first released; the Streisand Effect then kicked in.

 

By the same folks that did A Parting Hymn: Lies, Deceit & Death of the Labour Party as per my sig as I understand it, which was also well made.

 

EDIT. This morning's Herald print FP.

 

Posted Image

 

This is also interesting in the Herald:

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/united-we-will-stand-but-for-how-long.20951574

 

 

United we will stand – but for how long?

 

Vote No for confusion and uncertainty.

 
That is hardly likely to be the clarion call from Alistair Darling, leader of Better Together, as he makes the case against Scottish independence in the long build-up to next year's referendum. Yet there is a cogent case to be made that a No vote would lead to far more uncertainty than a positive Yes vote.
 
There are several reasons for thinking this. The other day I heard a respected expert on European affairs enunciating the following feasible and plausible scenario. Next September, Scotland votes No. The following summer, in the UK General Election, David Cameron is voted back into Downing Street, albeit with a small majority. True to his promise, he holds a UK-wide referendum on Europe in 2017.
 
The decision is to leave the EU. When the results are broken down, it is clear that England has voted to quit Europe by a significant majority, but Scotland has voted to stay in Europe by an equally significant majority. In these circumstances, the case for a second Scottish referendum on independence would be very strong indeed. In any event, there would be loads of uncertainty, dollops of confusion. Tensions between England and Scotland would be acute...
Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is the kind of scenario that unionist cannot put a positive spin on.The union is biased 10/1 in favour of one country England.That is the inherant defect of the union.In fact it has been the defect that has led to the collapse of all nation states.Think USSR/Russia .Where like the Uk non Russians were incorrectly referred to as Russians when they were Soviets.How often is Uk referred to as England and it goes unchecked by the English media and even worse sometimes by Radio Scotland when nterviewing foreign people about Scotland or the Uk.This slight is both factially incorrect and downright infuriating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is the kind of scenario that unionist cannot put a positive spin on.The union is biased 10/1 in favour of one country England.That is the inherant defect of the union.In fact it has been the defect that has led to the collapse of all nation states.Think USSR/Russia .Where like the Uk non Russians were incorrectly referred to as Russians when they were Soviets.How often is Uk referred to as England and it goes unchecked by the English media and even worse sometimes by Radio Scotland when nterviewing foreign people about Scotland or the Uk.This slight is both factially incorrect and downright infuriating.

 

Yes, but then that's only to be expected I suppose; Scotland is just 8.4% of the population. Not intentional for the vast majority; any unintentional 'slight' (for want of a better word) that is.

 

Any 'cringe' is primarily made in Scotland and perpetuated by Scots 'on the make'. George Cunningham was a past example, Gordon Brown a recent one. Most Scots MPs are examples today (bar the ones trying desperately to lose their jobs intentionally). Bought and sold for 'British' gold is as true as it has ever been.

 

If you watch BBC news from London, most of it seems to be born of ignorance. There's some twats that might have a laugh, a wee snigger, but only because they don't understand and feel slightly worried because of that; it's called projection. Britain is coming to an end and they just don't quite know why. Most of the neighbours wish Scotland well and many are as peed off with Westminster as us.

Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that.Politics in England is now fundamentaly different to that of Scotland.Ukip taking 20 percent down south is proof. A UK little Englander party has no place in Scottish politicsl.They are just reflecting the views of the anti Europe anti immigration element growing in English society.Meanwhile Scotland wishes to embrace immigrants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that.Politics in England is now fundamentaly different to that of Scotland.Ukip taking 20 percent down south is proof. A UK little Englander party has no place in Scottish politicsl.They are just reflecting the views of the anti Europe anti immigration element growing in English society.Meanwhile Scotland wishes to embrace immigrants.

Send a fleet of coaches down if u think it will improve Scottish life and culture.The little Englander comment is a bit inflammatory. Much as to be expected from your good nationalist self.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Little Englander' is actually quite a compliment.

 

I like little Englanders. They are like little Scotlanders; the polar opposite of Imperial Britishers.

 

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

 

Just to clarify.

 

Although I'd agree that Farage/UKIP has no place in Scottish politics. That's not specifically my own personal opinion, just that he/UKIP doesn't actually have a place in Scottish politics, bar a % or two. 

 

C'est la vie.

Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that.Politics in England is now fundamentaly different to that of Scotland.Ukip taking 20 percent down south is proof. A UK little Englander party has no place in Scottish politicsl.They are just reflecting the views of the anti Europe anti immigration element growing in English society.Meanwhile Scotland wishes to embrace immigrants.

 

Unlimited numbers? Will have they to speak Gaelic?

Edited by knocker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, UKIP's Scottish manifesto proposed that all governmental material in Scotland should be only in Gaelic or English.

 

Poor Lowland Scots speakers.Posted Image

 

EDIT

 

BBC (unionist) Radio Scotland had a UKIP Scotland guy on the radio yesterday. Once he started rabbiting on, you got the impression they were desperate to end the interview. I could understand why listening to him.

 

Anyhoo, this from today's Sunday Herald.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/revealed-the-hate-filled-face-of-ukip-in-scotland.20948587

 

Revealed: the hate-filled face of UKIP in Scotland

 

UKIP Scotland's new energy spokesman is under fire after he accused "selfish" gay people of being "deeply hostile to heterosexuals" and of wanting to "destroy our society".
 
Michael Haseler also claimed that politicians in favour of same-sex marriage wanted to "redefine marriage in their own perverse concept of society".
 
MSPs last night described the remarks as "beyond the pale" and "poisonous".
 
Not sure this is best approach for getting a foothold north of the border.
 
I'd venture to suggest that UKIP's success might help explain why YesScotland got another 800 new (from Facebook at least) sign-ups yesterday whist Better Together got 30.
 
----------
 
Oh and can people please try to keep it civil; that goes for all.
 

Dinnae fash yersel / keep yer heid.

 

----

 

Yougov survey says 67% believe Westminster should negotiate with the Scottish Government to sort out what happens in the event of a Yes before the referendum.

 

 

2 in 3 Scots demand to know what happens after independence vote
 

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4915740/2-in-3-Scots-demand-to-know-what-happens-after-independence-vote.html

 

Would be the civil thing to do, but so far Dave et al. refuse to be civil. Dave seems to forget he is Scotland's PM and therefore supposed to work for the benefit of Scots. That would include making sure a Yes vote results in a smooth, amicable transition to independence.

 

EDIT, more info on the poll:

 

The poll asked:  


"A referendum on an independent Scotland is taking place on 18 September 2014. In the event of a Yes vote, a number of areas would need to be negotiated between the Scottish and UK governments before Scotland became an independent country in 2016 - including issues such as currency, financial regulation, and the share of assets and liabilities that would accrue to Scotland and the rest of the UK.

"Do you think that the UK and Scottish governments should or should not hold talks before the referendum, to help pave the way for formal negotiations should there be a Yes vote?"


67% agreed that the two governments should hold talks before the referendum, with 21% against and 11% who did not know.  Supporters of every political party support pre-referendum talks:

  • [*]
Among Labour voters, 67% support talks with 25% against

  • [*]
Among Lib Dem voters, 66% support talks with 34% against

  • [*]
Among Conservative voters, 53% support talks with 39% against

  • [*]
Among SNP voters, 88% support talks with 8% against

So even Tory voters in Scotland are in majority agreement that Westminster should negotiate with Holyrood ahead of the referendum.

 

 

Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlimited numbers? Will have they to speak Gaelic?

England is over crowded.Scotland is underpopulated.So that is the point here.We are two different nations. Couldnt care less we all speak English in Scotland today why try to reverse history.As for the little Englander comment its perfectly legitimate when referring to ukip thats what they are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

England is over crowded.Scotland is underpopulated.So that is the point here.We are two different nations. Couldnt care less we all speak English in Scotland today why try to reverse history.As for the little Englander comment its perfectly legitimate when referring to ukip thats what they are.

oh come now november 13. i agree with many of your posts but even alec salmond famously said on question time is anyone seriously in favour of mass uncontrolled immigration. Surely a sensible government will construct a policy of controlled immigration to suit our needs.

 

I also care very much on your point about speaking english. Language revival is extremely difficult , but surely we should be teaching our children our native language , gaidhlig , and scots as well for those who favour it. 

 

Independance means more to me than just swapping london for holyrood and continuing with a similar political and cultural system. The first step on the road to an independant nation is destroying the scottish cringe and taking pride in who we are and who we come from. A country is nothing without its history and culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Little Englander' is actually quite a compliment.

 

I like little Englanders. They are like little Scotlanders; the polar opposite of Imperial Britishers.

 

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

 

 

 

Oops, I see the definition is not what it used to be. I should have paid attention.

 

Although it should be remembered that anyone who supports the UK Union is a nationalist (British nationalist) just as much as anyone who supports independence is (Scottish nationalist, English nationalist, Welsh nationalist...).

Edited by scottish skier
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all of that.Gaelic and Scots need to be preserved .However like it or not for most modern Scots English is our common language.In terms of myself the cultural aspect is the reason I want independence but thats got a lot more to do with social policy than just components like language.Scotland should control its own immigrants not the Uk.The poles,Italians and Irish have shaped modern Scotland.They  have enhanced our nation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all of that.Gaelic and Scots need to be preserved .However like it or not for most modern Scots English is our common language.In terms of myself the cultural aspect is the reason I want independence but thats got a lot more to do with social policy than just components like language.Scotland should control its own immigrants not the Uk.The poles,Italians and Irish have shaped modern Scotland.They  have enhanced our nation.

thanks for your reply. if you read many of my posts on this forum , i openly support ( controlled) immigration , and have argued about britains muti cultural history and also the fact scotland is made up of many differing peoples and cultures throughout history just like any other country.

 

Immigrants are welcome in scotland , just as i , an immigrant to england  , have been welcomed by the english people , who are not , despite the stereotyping by some, a nation of right wing bigots. The english are for the most part a friendly welcoming people , but i understand and sometimes sympathise with much of the arguments about the pathetic immigration policy of successive uk governemnts. 

 

Scotland has not seen the level of immigration and poor cohesion of differing groups that has been foisted upon central and southern england. We are light years behind what has happened to england for various reasons.

 

With regards to language , thats a debate we need to have in an independant scotland. English is our lingua franca but it is not our language , and with the proper backing of the scottish political elite and a concentrated social policy we can learn from the mistakes in ireland with gailge and try and emulate the success of ulpan and the re introduction of hebrew in israel. If the will is there of course. Languages come and go , 1000 years ago it was gaidhlig the majority spoke , today , english and who knows what tomorrow.

 

Start by teaching scottish history and languages and destroying the myths of the seperate highlander and lowlander , and instill a bit of pride back into the scottish people instead of the oft ridicule of the scottish cringe on our language and culture and derision of the kilt and bagpipes i so often heard as a child in glasgow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, I see the definition is not what it used to be. I should have paid attention.

 

Although it should be remembered that anyone who supports the UK Union is a nationalist (British nationalist) just as much as anyone who supports independence is (Scottish nationalist, English nationalist, Welsh nationalist...).

 

Nationalist to me is too strong a word in that when i think of nationalism i think of patriotism and love for your country. In my case i am an Anglo-European but i'm not significantly patriotic and so would not say that i'm a nationalist. If anything, i think that nationalism tends to limit people and make them look inward when unity is what is required for our species to be sustainably prosperous rather than killing each other.

 

Note that despite being British (well technically we all are anyway since this island is Great Britain) i actually lean to supporting a free Scotland on the basis that i'm a citizen of both and Scotland seems more likely not to go all nutty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nationalist to me is too strong a word in that when i think of nationalism i think of patriotism and love for your country. In my case i am an Anglo-European but i'm not significantly patriotic and so would not say that i'm a nationalist. If anything, i think that nationalism tends to limit people and make them look inward when unity is what is required for our species to be sustainably prosperous rather than killing each other.

 

Note that despite being British (well technically we all are anyway since this island is Great Britain) i actually lean to supporting a free Scotland on the basis that i'm a citizen of both and Scotland seems more likely not to go all nutty.

 

There are various definitions although I know what you mean.

 

Nationalism is the reason countries exist - a group of people in a distinct geographical area who have historically ended up all as one community/society. In that sense it's rather harmless and is e.g. invoked when e,g. watching the world cup.

 

I think it is crucial too for society, being of liberal civic nationalism leanings where the community (as expressed through the nation state) is seen as crucial to stability and progress. It makes people feel they belong to a community rather than every man for himself.*

 

People who support the UK union are British nationalists in that harmless sense, just as people who support Scottish independence are Scottish nationalists in the same way; it's just the state they differ on. The jubilee and Olympics were a big nationalism celebration; hence the union jacks everywhere. One was a cultural tradition celebration, the other a competitive sporting event against other nations. Harmless fun.

 

I completely agree that a nationalist party in a country that is already sovereign/independent usually means bad news as what do they want if they already have independence? Most likely it means they don't like people who are not of their nationality, which is when things get nasty.

 

Hence the BNP are a worry, but the SNP are not. The N in the latter means 'want to be a nation / for all the nation' and will vanish in an independent Scotland to become a D probably, i.e. Social Democratic Party (centrist liberal).

 

Personally, in addition to being a liberal civic nationalist, I'm also very much an internationalist; I would like to see Scotland take it's place in the UN, Europe etc; be part of the family of global nations. Unionists instead wish it to have no voice in the world so are arguably far more isolationist/inward looking.

 

EDIT:

 

*Liberal nationalism, also known as civic nationalism or civil nationalism, is a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. Ernest Renan and John Stuart Mill are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives and that democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.

 

Liberal nationalism is the form of nationalism where the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry (see popular sovereignty), to the degree that it represents the "general will". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract.

 

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

 

You'll hear the words 'Social Contract' a lot from the SNP.

 

-------

 

EDIT. In the meantime....

 

LOL

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/better-together-campaign-says-theyre-1870822

 

Better Together campaign refuse to work with UKIP in bid to keep Scotland part of union

 

Here was me thinking Better Together were an inclusive, cross-party campaign. There are some UKIP voters in Scotland, why alienate them?

 

Oh dear, the rise of UKIP is a complete and utter disaster for the pro-union campaign. It's worse than the Tories. How the hell do they sell the union now.

Edited by scottish skier
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are various definitions although I know what you mean.

 

Nationalism is the reason countries exist - a group of people in a distinct geographical area who have historically ended up all as one community/society. In that sense it's rather harmless and is e.g. invoked when e,g. watching the world cup.

 

I think it is crucial too for society, being of liberal civic nationalism leanings where the community (as expressed through the nation state) is seen as crucial to stability and progress. It makes people feel they belong to a community rather than every man for himself.

 

People who support the UK union are British nationalists in that harmless sense, just as people who support Scottish independence are Scottish nationalists in the same way; it's just the state they differ on. The jubilee and Olympics were a big nationalism celebration; hence the union jacks everywhere. One was a cultural tradition celebration, the other a competitive sporting event against other nations. Harmless fun.

 

I completely agree that a nationalist party in a country that is already sovereign/independent usually means bad news as what do they want if they already have independence? Most likely it means they don't like people who are not of their nationality, which is when things get nasty.

 

Hence the BNP are a worry, but the SNP are not. The N in the latter means 'want to be a nation / for all the nation' and I will vanish in an independent Scotland to become a D probably, i.e. Social Democratic Party (centrist liberal).

 

Personally, in addition to being a liberal civic nationalist, I'm also very much an internationalist; I would like to see Scotland take it's place in the UN, Europe etc; be part of the family of global nations. Unionists instead wish it to have no voice in the world so are arguably far more isolationist/inward looking.

 

-------

 

EDIT. In the meantime....

 

LOL

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/better-together-campaign-says-theyre-1870822

 

Better Together campaign refuse to work with UKIP in bid to keep Scotland part of union

 

Here was me thinking Better Together were an inclusive, cross-party campaign. There are some UKIP voters in Scotland, why alienate them?

 

Oh dear, the rise of UKIP is a complete and utter disaster for the pro-union campaign. It's worse than the Tories. How the hell do they sell the union now.

what another great post and i will reply to this , which sums up much of my feelings exactly , if i get the chance ( had a barbecue beer and too much sun).

 

i am a scottish nationalist , long before i ever heard of alec salmond and the snp , and through the love and teachings of my wonderfull grandfather have wholeheartedly believed in the scottish nation , independant and gaidhlig , since childhood.

 

The idea of ridiculous parties like the bnp and the false ideology of race , turn my stomach. The conspiracy theorist in me beleives they were established by the brit elite to damage english nationlaism , the greatest threat to the british elite in these islands.

 

 

once again thanks ss and i enjoy your informative posts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lesley Riddoch has a shameful article in the Scotsman.Describing both the Snp and Ukip as protest parties.The SNP are not and have never been a protest party.They are the national party of Scotland.They wish to see a normal independent Scotland within Europe.Ukip are a narrow right wing anti anything that is not Brit/English party.They re not even on the same spectrum as Scotlands party.The Uk is already a sovereign nation within Europe while Scotland is not.So one party is fighting for democratic independence.The other wishes to extract itself from the EU but the EU s not a nation its a federation of independent nations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...