January 03, 2011

Scottish Independence?

Right. Having upset the religious, this time I'll probably upset the Scots.

About three minutes after the Act of Union was signed in 1707, a group of Scotsmen (women weren't allowed opinions back then), decided that they wanted to break away from the Union and seek independence. They have been banging on about it now for 304 years. They are no closer to independence now than they were back then, or indeed, at any time in between. And that's despite having heavy hitters like Shir Shorn Connery on the team. Not even Wee Eck, Scotlands First Monster, has had much of an impact. As a matter of fact, he may even have set the "cause" back by a few years...

In pictorial terms, Scotlands chances of gaining independence are similar to this photo I took about 20 minutes ago while walking the dogs.

Which is to say, raggedy and in need of renewal, rejuvenation or.....scrapping.

I am the one in ten. I am one of the 500,000 Englishmen in a population of 5.2 million Scots. My next door neighbour (two houses ago) is a staunch SNP man. He believes only an independent Scotland can survive and thrive and demands that they leave the Union immediately, if not sooner. He is a proud man, and indeed, the Scots are a proud nation. Whatever you might read in the newspapers, the Scots are generous, friendly, and welcoming. Having lived here for over 20 years I can attest to that. There is some racism but I give as good as I get, by which I mean I respond to the friendly banter with friendly banter and if any Scot gives me lip about my being here, I gently tell him or her to getifa ya bassa. (Research Billy Connolly if you struggle with the phraseology). My neighbour once told me, quite venomously, "Scottish independence has nothing to do with you!". Meaning that I should leave Scotlands future to the Scots. And for many years I did. When asked about it I would often say, "Well, if you guys want independence, go for it. It's your country". And I genuinely believed that it was none of my business. I feel like a guest here. It isn't my country and I am constantly reminded of that fact. Both of my sons, one born in Rochdale and one born in Aberdeen, tell our English relatives that they are Scotsmen. Which is fine by me. They define themselves, and if they want to be Scots, then they can be.

Would I be chasing independence if I were a Scot? Absolutely. You are all following my struggle to be an independent human being, so freeing my nation would be a requisite. Not a "nice to have", but absolutely essential. Scotland does not need to ride the shirt-tails of the Union. It can stand on its own two feet.

And therein lies the problem.

It will not. Moreover, they are happy to tell you that they will not stand alone.

The Scottish National Party is riddled with europhiles. They, like the goons in Westminster, know what a gravy-train looks like. I predict that if independence is ever won, the Scots will give it up after about 10 seconds. Before the first champagne cork even lands, some feckless wonder will be on the horn to von Rumpy demanding money. The grants will be huge and they will be delivered swiftly. The Scots will then kid themselves that they are free and independent from one union whilst swearing blood-oaths to a master much worse, and much more demanding than the old one. And please, don't be telling me that the pretendy parliament at Holyrood has any serious autonomy. They are fed scraps from the Big Boys Table. Crappy scraps, at that. I find it insulting and I am not even Scottish.

Yes. They will run rapidly to von Rumpy and beg for scraps from a different table.

I suppose one answer will be "Why not? If Ireland (similar in population) can qualify for billions in grants, why not us?". My response would be that after over three hundred years of wanting to break away, why the hell would you immediately surrender your newly won sovereignty for a bag of shiny beads? The SNP will sell this country cheap. It would be the crime of the millenium. But they wear only short distance glasses, each one of them is looking for personal glory and they will ignore the medium or long term damage. For now, a seat in the (Scottish?) Lords will be prize enough. Bragging rights are about as lofty as their ambitions go.

Of course, independence for Scotland would mean that the UK, (now broken up) would need to re-apply for membership of The Stupidest Club In The World, and that is not a bad thing. I for one would be cock-a-hoop. Scotland would also need to apply but Brussels would accept them in a heartbeat. No questions asked. They'll take almost anyone. Tell them you will change to the doomed euro as well and you will probably get a signing-on bonus.

On balance then, I should support independence for Scotland. Not because it frees the Scots, but because it frees me. An Englishman. Would I stay in a Scotland in thrall of the EU? Nope. Would I immediately sell up and head south? Yep. Would I have a twinge of conscience about leaving? Nope. Not a jot.

An independent Scotland is coming, I reckon. But, then again I am firmly enveloped in a fanatically SNP region. It's Nats as far as the eye can see up here in Aberdeenshire. So there is an appetite for independence here, but at what cost? Not to the almighty Union, but to their nation and much more importantly, to themselves.

There is probably much more to consider than the few points I have made here.

Do what you do best:

Correct me.



Quiet_Man said...

I think even a few Nats have grave qualms about the SNP's love in with the EU. Subrosa certainly does.
Problem is though if they do get independence, the decision about the EU will not be left to the Nat proles, it will be a political decision by the politicians.
Mind you I suspect the English might just kick up a major fuss if our lot tried to drag us back in, or perhaps not, it depends on if the X Factor is on that night.

Anonymous said...

Like the Irish, this has less to do with really believing that independence offers greater benefits to the people. For most Scots (and Irish, and Welsh) the English are the ancestral enemy and motivations to leave the union go no further than that. They won't care that they have become an ever smaller slave to an even more powerful master - they have centuries experience in being a satalite state. It's a shoe in for the political class to wheel out thje "stand tall in Europe" arguments.

Anonymous said...

That's a good article Cap'n and I can't disagree with a word as a Scotsman, although your use of the word 'racism' is somewhat bewildering as I would have imagined, you above all people would see NWO hijacking of definition in order to suit their agenda.

Aberdeenshire is strong Nat country. Sadly Dundee is strong Socialist country, although it is growing in Nats, which I find rather hilarious because the SNP, as you correctly stated are a pro EU party, meaning breaking away from the UK would mean becoming a vassal of Brussels and the Scots wouldn't like that. As I've written before, tell my what other Nationalist party you know welcomes hordes of immigrants into its land, when unemployment is high and seeks to be controlled from another land? If people haven't noticed this and they still vote SNP, then they've got more porridge in their head than sense.

What the nationalists should be doing in Scotland is the following:

1. Breaking away from the Union but also the EU.
2. Stopping and reversing all non EU migration to it.
3. Sorting out its unemployment problem.
4. Creating jobs by investing in Entrepreneurs and making in Scotland what it needs to survive, which means an end to cheap imports from China.
5. It needs to end Indian call centres and companies relocating to foreign lands for cheap labour. In that I mean that say for example a confectionery company moves to Hungary, then it is no longer allowed to sell its product for the same price, but instead at a much reduced cost to compensate their profit margin from before. This would stop future companies from relocating down to greed.
6. It needs to create a common law constitution to protect its citizens.
7. It needs to do away with a police force and initiate gun ownership for its citizens.
8. It also needs to remove the Lawyers and judges from society and start common law teaching at school to all people in order for them to know their rights and defend themselves in a Common Law court.
9. We need to end all usury and Fiat currency banking.
10. We need to bring back village mentality again, that is, having people working in that village to sustain that village, producing everything it needs within, thus creating a work force and a libertarian, meritocratic society.

There are lots more but you catch the jist. Lastly there isn't any racism in Scotland, only friendly banter. Hell my three mates I've made since coming back from London are a former ICF boy from WestHam, a true cockney; a lad from Plymouth and a yardie from Jamaica. Sure they get the stick all the time, but there's no malice meant. It keeps you on your toes and sharpens your wit.

Dioclese said...

Financially it makes no difference to the English. All that will happen is that instead to sending the money to Edinburgh we will be sending it to Brussels, Let them have independence as long as we can have it too.

joe said...

I really hate this debate,because its so stupid.The nats up there just can't seem to understand they would be sold out to a bigger bunch of pigs,and the ones who do understand that seem to think they're going to have some clout in the EU parliament.That fucking oil they keep banging on about will fast become European oil,whats left anyway.

This leads me to another story.My younger cousin was down from scotland to spend christmas with my mum and dad,well it was terrifying.She is a vegan, Scots
nat,thinks we should be paying for her education(she comes from a middle class family although i do not) along with everyone elses,pro-government wants a job at Scotlands soon to be parish council(Parliament)

Well as you can imagine when i told her i was totally anti-state the aguments started,it was hillarous but scary.You know the rest.

And just for the record i love Scotland.

Witterings from Witney said...

Fair summary of the situation CR - and the after effects!

Mind you, just wait till Subrosa arrives here, I would put the appropriate protection on, if I were you!

Anonymous said...

Born in Scotland of Scots parents, so I may be permitted an opinion.

Or three.

Let them have their freedom. Scotland is a violent, drug ridden hole. Powered by sectarianism, small-mindedness, mindless patriotism and Buckfast. I look forward to the day I can watch them sailing off into the sunset, ablaze like a Viking longship funeral. It can only benefit the UK to get rid.

You'll not catch me at a Burns night supper.

Found A Voice said...

CR, Happy New Year to you.

The independence of Scotland is something to do with us English, as we made an agreement to join each other and have since made major investments both ways. To end this and the impact of this must allow for valid participation in the debate.

I totally agree that upon independence the Scots would immediately submit to the will of the EU - in fact, I seem to recall the SNP propogating copying the other sell outs, Ireland.


Budvar said...

You look in the dictionary under the word "Oxymoron" it says "Scotland, independence within Europe".

Zaphod said...

The Scots are welcome to stay in the union, for me. But if they leave, they'd be crazy to enslave themselves to Europe. And they will, of course. Their politicians are are idiotic as ours in that respect.

Electorally, it would give our right wing a boost. All those lefty voters out of the pool. I expect we'd still have a lot of Scots in our parliament, though. That's traditional.

V4V said...

Sorry Harbinger but I agree with CR, I lived in Edinburgh and Glasgow and found plenty of anti English sentiment from the Irish settlers which which got quite nasty at times.

I was a Unionist but now feel English independence is the only way forward for the English to shake off the EU shackles, turn it around and thrive. If the Scots do it first then all the better.

Scotland will always have a begging bowl so long as they have a socialist outlook. It's about time they weened themselves of nanny's teet and fended for themselves.


subrosa said...

I'm not going to comment right now CR but I'll put this on my list for Take Your Pick which I'll publish tomorrow.

That way you may get more interesting comments than mine.

formertory said...

Harbinger sounds like the sort of economist the SNP and other socialists would be proud of; "ban cheap imports from China", "invest in entrepreneurs to create jobs", "ban foreign call centres", retail price maintenance where companies save money by locating abroad, "self-sustaining villages" growing and making what they need.

Dear God. As if the country wasn't deep enough in the shite already, economically and socially, he wants a move back to the Good Ole Days - the 1930's, or maybe the 1950's!

There's much to love about life in Scotland - and I do - but the economic instincts of most people living here isn't part of it.

Anonymous said...


Nothing wrong with disagreeing. More importantly the blood runs deep in Scotland and many Scots (and Irish) won't forget history. I accept and respect that. Hell, there are pubs in Aberdeenshire that still won't serve a Campbell because of the old clan rivalry and of course Glencoe!

I agree 100% that England should strive for independence and you should be proud of your culture and traditions, but alas, your country is swamped by many non indigenous who, in the future I'm, sad to say will look upon themselves as English if you do get it. At the moment anyone who lands on these lands can become British, what do you think will happen when there's no longer a Britain? Simple situation is RFB that the word indigenous will soon be hijacked to mean anyone who 'lives/is born' within a land regardless of ancestry I'm sorry to say.

I agree that Scotland is a problem while it's full of socialism but then you have the state education (secondary and tertiary) and MSM brainwashing for that.

Anonymous said...



"Harbinger sounds like the sort of economist the SNP and other socialists would be proud of; "ban cheap imports from China""

A socialist? Me? - LMFAO!

You are obviously oblivious to the simple fact that the creation of China as the world's leading manufacturing base IS THE PRODUCT OF SOCIALISM you twit!!! You fail to realise that while the west continues to buy Chinese imports, our workforce is paying the brunt. Why pay your workforce a decent wage when you can pay another workforce a mere fraction for the same product? THE WEST HAS CREATED CHINA TO THE DETRIMENT OF ITS OWN PEOPLE - WAKE THE FUCK UP!

"invest in entrepreneurs to create jobs.."

And? Should we not strive to create employment for our own workforce; giving them a purpose in life; a means to support their family; feel independent and not have to rely on the state? Or should we continue to increase our unemployed, by giving people materialism, from cheap, imports, that's fucking up society in the long run? Jeez, sometimes I really wonder about people!

"ban foreign call centres..."

Again, shall we continue to improve the situation in India while our society suffers because of it? Shall we continue laying off our staff because Indians in India can do the same job for a fraction of the price? Are you capable of critical thinking? Tell me, what happens to a society whose workforce is unemployed? I've nothing against China or India, just that China and India are their own problem, not mine. I really couldn't give a fuck about any of them and if it means my children/fellow Britons are unemployed because they're taking the jobs THAT SHOULD be theirs then I'm certainly 100% against them.

"retail price maintenance where companies save money by locating abroad..."

And why do they do so? Saving money? Really? Are you sure it's not about reaping in more profit - greed? I think you need a reality check on this one.

"self-sustaining villages" growing and making what they need...."

And what is the better model? Having megalopolises, full of mindless automatons, where the country is merely an area to create GM foods in order to manipulate our minds, or having a country life where people are brought up as individuals and not part of the MSM promoted diversity culture (read individualism destroyer)?

You know formertory it seems to me that you're very much a Globalist, i.e a proponent of the New World Order. It also seems that you are blissfully unaware that we live within a communist state, or should I say a communitarian state. It also seems 100% from where I'm sitting that you'd be happy to see a borderless globe and a one world government with banking system to boot. Your views certainly adhere to that by laying into mine.

Jacobite said...

The further back you look in history the more you will see the future ( a winston Churchill quote) and how true. As you see my post name Jacobite, I chose this name as I have always seen myself as a rebel fiercly scottish and wishing for an independant Scotland. I always thought a small country like ours that gave so much to the world would indeed have the ability to govern itself and its people to thrive. After leaving the Army ( A Highland regiment my choice) I spent a couple of years in Africa I did not settle there I returned to scotland and through my work was promoted and took a transfer to Lancashire where I have been now for 36 years. England has been very good to me having built and run my own business, I always watched the progress of the SNP and I know given my history that I seem hypocritical but in my heart I have always held the belief that an independant scotland would be a good thing for its people, however my ardour for that is diminishing when I see the love affair that the SNP has for the EU. In this age of globalism you can see clearly that the TPTB and ruling elite are steamrolling us towards one world governance regardless of what the democratic will of the people within those countries feel or say, I will man the barricades when the time comes.

formertory said...

Whatever I am, Harbinger, I'm considerably less an interventionist than you. I see no justification for Government getting involved in protectionism because it inevitably ends up with all parties worse off - Clydeside shipbuilding, anyone?

Your economic policy suggestions are as close to National Socialism as anything I've seen in a long time; check out the similarities between what you say you believe and, say, the BNP (who are Socialists, whatever the left-wing would have us believe).

Entrepreneurs don't need investing in; they need an environment where they can keep the rewards of their risk-taking and labour, not see it taxed away by a government that at a UK-wide level las decided that paying schoolgirls to get pregnant is a worthier use of taxpayers' funds than properly defending the country.

If you're in favour of protectionism I suggest in all earnestness that you Google for "Frederic Bastiat" and read his essays on what is seen, and what is not seen; and his petition on behalf of candlemakers to the Government, urging that all persons and businesses be required to fit shutters to their premises for use during the day so as to protect the jobs of candlemakers.

Incidentally, ideas of a borderless globe, a single world government and a single banking system are laughable. Whatever you see yourself to be, Harbinger, you're no libertarian and you're no friend of those who believe in small Government or freedom of the individual.

Happy New Year to you, nonetheless.

I am Stan said...

Yo Capitan,

Mmmm interesting post and comments,correct me if I'm wrong (which happened once) doesn`t Scotsland do alright out a English tax pounds?.

My point!,it would mean less money all round for the Scots would it not, and who come the crunch would vote that?

Anonymous said...


Again, total obliviousness to what I write, but then it's expected. Firstly I am an anarcho libertarian nationalist, meaning that I disagree 90% practically in government, even small. I choose not to be ruled over or controlled by the state. It means that as a person I choose whom to associate with and employ regardless of sex, creed, race or nationality. Now you can prattle on about the BNP but in what they say about protecting a workforce I'm 100% behind them, for the simple reason that if you do not believe in sustaining your own workforce then it means you are 100% behind globalism and you have proven that more so in your writings.

It's really quite simple that if you have a people, in your own land, skilled, able to make your own goods and not relying on other countries to provide you with that then you have 100% self sustainability. When you start selling off you industry to foreign ownership; when you start relying on foreign goods/food then you put yourself in a very compromising situation indeed.

Free trade was brought in for one reason, again on double think/speak - "It will help developing nations" they said but what they never told you was that it would completely obliterate your workforce entirely as we are seeing in the UK. Now if we follow this into the future we will see that all those middle classes who think their jobs are safe are in for a big shock. What happens when they lose their jobs? Who's going to support them? How will they keep up their mortgages? How will those with no mortgages pay their housing benefits when local councils decide that private landlords are charging too much and won't pay the excess?
This is the problem with society in that it's those middle classes and brainwashed lower classes who think because they're not unemployed, they're ok.

It makes me laugh out loud when I read of people such as yourself who hide behind libertarianism and shout down those who are very libertarian but have the foresight and ability to join the dots, something you clearly don't have.
Now I'll explain it to you quite simply seeing that you are incapable of being unable to see the bigger picture:

1. Make sure that if you are in government the people of that land have jobs. That was those workers have self respect, can bring up families, crime will be low, taxes will be paid and thus money for the state, albeit I disagree in one, but nonetheless even libertarians believe in 'small' government in order to make the wheel revolve and society continue.

2. If you don't do the above then you create a desperate people within that society. A people who depend upon the state for handouts. A people who are demorilised. A people who have no income to maintain their living costs and keep a family. A people who will inevitably resort to crime in order to survive. A people with no morals for society is no longer moral in the way it treats them. (cont)

Anonymous said...

Let me tell you something about protectionism shall I? Ok, the word protectionism was another liberal slur word used to utterly obliterate the self sustainability of that land and open it up to be part of globalised world. The fact that you are unable to see this is completely and utterly beyond me.

As the word racism, initially used by Trotsky to attack the Slavic people from not surrendering their culture and traditions to communist takeover, then changed to mean a hater of another race/culture/nationality; as the word anti semite was first used to describe those who dislike Judaism but then changed to those whom Jews hate, the word protectionism was created to attack anyone who saw common sense in saying - "Well we'd actually prefer it if we kept jobs in the community, thus enabling people an income and a means to survive."

You know I'm sure the miners who had just lost their jobs under Thatcher's regime were just tickled pink to think - "Well, hey, fuck it, we've lost our livelihoods, we're losing our families and homes, we've nothing left in life anymore, but we're all glad that the Polish and the Russian miners have a job..."

Tell me Mr Former Tory, what happens to the UK when most of the people within are unemployed? Will you still be the ardent supporter of free trade that you are when you see that the UK is now a decadent shithole, high unemployment, high crime rates, but look India is a sparkling place of finance and Communist China is just how Britain used to be?

Protectionism is the only way to go if you want to keep a society that's capable of sustaining itself and why in the fuck do you think that protectionism is a slur word in politics? Have you even dwindled on this whatsoever? Have you not in your incredible intelligence seen that protectionism, like nationalism, like religion are the main opponents of the New World Order, the Global elite's plan to create a one world government and banking system? Tell me, oh wise one, why is it do you think that the NWO promotes free trade, mass immigration, promotion of multicultures within the west? Are you unable to see that these three programmes, so to speak, are there in order to obliterate sovereignty?

And as for libertarianism, well sadly this is another 'ism' another controlled opposition by the elite, along with conservatism, liberalism, socialism etc etc. You can only have a society that believes in liberty if you protect that society from cultures WHO DO NOT believe in liberty. Does Islam believe in liberty or religious control over all people's lives? What happens in a libertarian society, a society that allows the sham of democracy, when the Islamic community grow larger than the libertarians and vote, en masse for Islamism and worship of Muhammad under Allah? Where will your Libertarian principles be then? (cont)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

This is why I laugh at libertarianism and why I do not pertain to be predominantly libertarian because libertarianism only survives within a society that promotes it and as I said PROTECTS IT.

My ideal life would be living in a village, growing my own food, having a butcher, a baker and a candlestick maker within it. In this village we'd be 100% self sustainable, using our family members to maintain the society. However, a long would come people like you and say:

"How dare you do this! You are obviously racist because you choose to mix with people only of your own race. You are also protectionist because you won't employ people from outside of the village/country. What about people in other countries who have less than you? Don't you realise that by not accepting free trade you are destroying their livelihood...."

Liberty to me is about freedom. It's about freedom to think, to form an opinion and speak however I should choose to, without some fascist telling me I can't because it's breaking some bollox civil law regulation that I'm liable to be fined for saying, because it's offending another. I also believe that liberty means that I am an individual, not part of the herd, a leader of my own life, who won't follow blindly like the rest of society. It means that I'll stick two fingers up at anyone who should disagree with what I say, whom I associate with and whom I employ.

Now I can't have freedom, if I can't get a job in my own village/city/country because all the jobs have been hired out to foreign countries or the people of those foreign countries here. I can't have freedom when I want to live as my ancestors did because it goes against EU/UN policy, which ironically it doesn't because within the UN policy there are rights for indigenous peoples, that is anyone indigenous in this world, just not those within the west. I can't have freedom when I'm, being told that I can only say/do this or that unless it complies with so and so regulation and when people like you come along and say that protectionism is bad for a country, ironically a system that was in place in this world for thousands of years until the last century, it only goes to prove that although you laugh when told you're following the NWO agenda, your 100% ignorant to the fact that you are.


And lastly seeing as you want to throw in the dreadful BNP, they are the only political party in the UK who have actually seen the dangers that we face, actively trying to combat the destruction of our cultures and traditions, stem and reverse mass immigration purposefully imposed by the socialists and actually believe it or not, have a working society not depending on state handouts.

Now my opinion is simple - it should be common sense to see that protection of jobs in the UK and any land is tantamount to that land's economic/cultural survival. Long before the BNP came out with this stuff, before I'd ever heard of them I believed in protectionism. "Protectionism is left wing - blah, blah, blah" - what a load of utter shite. Are you trying to say to me then that every person who lived in the UK for thousands of years throughout history, passing down their jobs to their future generations was a socialist? - Fuck off!!!

formertory said...

OK, Harbinger. Thanks for, uh, explaining. Although I had no way of knowing what I was dealing with when I read your original comment, it's clear to me now that reason and logic are relative strangers to you; we see it here:

"I choose not to be ruled over by the State"

"I want the State to impose rules limiting how companies operate and how individuals spend their money"

....and so by extension I want the State to have the means of policing these restrictions and the power to punish them.....

For the record, I'm not a libertarian either; I believe strongly that a limited State is vital to protect the individual.

I must have pushed some pretty good-sized emotional buttons to get 4 rants in a matter of a few minutes - one deleted. Have a nice life, Harbinger, and mind your blood pressure, eh?

wv: beekless :o))

Anonymous said...


"I want the State to impose rules limiting how companies operate and how individuals spend their money"

Erm...where did I say that? I remember saying that we shouldn't allow companies to continue charging the same price for their goods, when they go to other lands to exploit the workforce and thus make huge profits for themselves at the expense of the British workforce that they should be employing. By all means allow them to sell their product in the UK, just at the price they'll be selling it in the country their factories are in, which guaranteed will be a fraction of the cost they'll want to sell it here at, hence why they moved - GREED & EXPLOITATION. Now the ultimate situation would be no state, merely people in the villages and the cities having a say with the companies, from their lands, who have moved abroad, deciding on how much they'll pay for the goods. You don't need a state to do this, merely meetings in local town halls by the people to decide how much the product will be sold for. After all they're buying it, their choice. End of, especially when the company has no intention of employing them to make the product due to greed.

"For the record, I'm not a libertarian either..."

I gathered not and can only really see you more as a Tory if anything else, hence why you disagree in that nasty socialist creation (NOT) of protectionism.

"I believe strongly that a limited State is vital to protect the individual..."

On the contrary, I believe that THE INDIVIDUAL is vital to protecting the individual. Too long has the state and before the state a Feudal system been there to the detriment of the individual. I believe pretty much in an anarchy, where no one has any control over another. When you have a state, that state controls the individual regardless. That state creates lawyers and judiciary to persecute the individual and police to enforce that persecution. Fuck the state as far as I'm concerned. I want to control me, most certainly not a state.
It just proves who wants to be freer doesn't it tory man?

And as for pushing buttons, well not really. I merely explained myself fully to you on your state/MSM indoctrination that common sense protectionism of jobs and the workforce was being used in order to destroy it and bring in the NWO's wishes of a globalised economy, controlled by a world banking system and thus a world government. You are just oblivious to seeing this as I said. And the post I deleted was asking the Captain to take the 2nd post in my reply to you from the spam folder.

And have a Happy New Year too ;)

James Higham said...

Whatever you might read in the newspapers, the Scots are generous, friendly, and welcoming.

Classic, Cap'n.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Captain Ranty; enjoyed your post.

My opinion; stay in Scotland. For now the SNP may have earned the right to take Scotland to independence. It has not the right as yet to govern an independent Scotland; the constitution of which must be defined and decided by the sovereignty of the people.

This is not an argument of Scots V English. It's an argument of Scots V The Westminster Establishment. An establishment that governs and serves the people of England as deceitfully and undemocratically as it does the Scots.

Just think, your vote for Scotland to be independent could be the catalyst for another 51 million people to get a better democracy.

CrazyDaisy said...


Tiz a broad "church" the SNP, nothing is taken for granted!

That aside the Scots should not be ruled by Westmidden, nor should you or I! Neither the EU, Norway is an excellent example but also suffers from immigration multiculturalism etcetcetc!

Who ever lives in Scotland should be entitled to vote on its future, you've made a life why should anyone anybody or any authority think they can tell a human being what they can and cannot do after your significant contribution to Scots life...

Saor Alba ;-)


Captain Ranty said...


If it is a head to head against Westminster I'll be in the front rank.

Nice to have some clarity. Your comment distils the argument a little. Thanks.

Thanks also to the other commenters here. I thought it would be more heated but there seems to be broad agreement. Some brilliant observations, as always.

Subrosa has warned me that I have raised her hackles over something and she will be along shortly to tell me what.

I think I know what it is and I have an answer ready!


Captain Ranty said...


Thanks for that.

I had intended to think mightily should I ever come across a box to tick for or against independence.

No nation should be at the beck and call of another so I reckon I know which box will get my tick.


brochloon said...


Nice blog piece, and I agree with quite a lot of it.

As "Budvar" pointed out the SNP's position re the EU is illogical and inconsistent ("Independence within Europe"....how I laughed when I first heard that!). I speak as someone from "East Aberdeenshire" who as a schoolboy helped the SNP campaign in the early days. That was when they had good candidates like Douglas Henderson, and the party could tolerate a broad body of opinion. Unfortunately since the left wing "coup" in the late 1970s and early 1980s by ex SLP Jim Sillars and his ilk I have not supported the party.

However the idea of "independence" (or to use another word "localism") is still one I support, not only for Scotland, but all countries in the UK. However after 37 years in the EEC/EC/EU as part of the UK I believe that the UK needs to re-establish it's freedom from that Stalanist institution first, before we address how we do our own business in these islands.

To that extent I am very much UK and British orientated, as I think we all should be.

Key bored warrior. said...

I am glad you are not my neighbor because if you tried to tell me that I am born of a nation that are beggars and scroungers then I would kick you very hard in the bollocks assuming you have any.

David Cameron said in a speech in Glasgow a couple of years ago:

"There's one aspect of Scottish-English relations that I want to address.

It may seem trivial to some but I happen to believe that it's almost more damaging to the Union than institutional or economic difficulties.

It's a question of attitudes.

And, in particular, the ignorance of English people about Scots and Scotland.

All too often Scots switch on their televisions to be greeted with ignorant and inaccurate stereotypes.

Even as an Englishman, I find it a bit embarrassing.

Another aspect of English cultural insensitivity that rears its head in the media is the vexed question of sporting identity.

Why is that Scottish sportsmen and women who win are habitually claimed by English media commentators as 'British' only to be promptly redesignated as 'Scottish' the moment they lose?

Instead of deriding Scots as chippy or difficult, isn't it time that English people of good will educated themselves?

Part of the problem is that some English commentators don't seem to know what to think of Scotland - when they can be bothered to think at all.

They appear seriously confused.

One moment they deride Scots as hopeless drunks and beggars.

The next they complain that England is run by something called the Scottish Raj, a race of superhumans led by John Reid and Kirsty Wark."

Key bored warrior. said...

Brown's £2bn Tube bail out...THE SOUTH FEAST.......

The Government is having to pay £2billion to clear the debts of failed Tube contractor Metronet, it was revealed today.

The Department for Transport must hand over the money after Metronet's backers called in their loans. It marks a major humiliation for Gordon Brown who as Chancellor was the chief architect of the private public partnership deal behind the debacle.

Metronet had originally raised the cash to cover the cost of its contracts to maintain and upgrade seven London Underground lines. But it went into administration last year with the debt outstanding.

Conservative transport spokesman Stephen Hammond said: "This is an extraordinary sum of money. The contracts should have been more tightly written. We,the taxpayer, are now underwriting the cost of Gordon Brown's failed PPP."

Under the arrangement, pushed through by Mr Brown in the face of fierce opposition, Metronet's backers are entitled to have all their debts repaid exactly six months after the company went into administration.

The Government has been forced to pick up the bill on behalf of Transport for London which is seeking to take over Metronet. "Metronet raised this money and should have invested it effectively, it failed," said a TfL insider.

The complex financial arrangement sees the Government hand over £2 billion to TFL which will in turn pay the money to Metronet's lenders.

TfL said the failure would not cost the London farepayer any more money. But it was unclear exactly how much the taxpayer would be out of pocket.

Insiders said that until TfL got its hands on Metronet's books it was impossible to tell how much work they had done and at what cost.

London Underground managing director Tim O'Toole said: "Our priority remains the removal of Metronet from PPP administration as quickly as possible. A great deal of progress has already been made. Tube services continue to operate safely and reliably for passengers, as they have done throughout the period of PPP administration."

Today's arrangement was triggered by the banks whichwere entitled to call in their debts - a process known as the Put option - from Metronet exactly six months after the company went into administration.

A Department of Transport aide said the deal was equivalent of someone having to pay off their mortgage early.

In a statement a spokesman said: "The settlement gives London Underground the resources needed to manage Metronet's administration and move toward a more stable long-term footing and continue the work to maintain, renew and upgrade the Underground.

Key bored warrior. said...

"This will have limited net impact on public finances since Metronet's borrowing was already part of the Government's balance sheet."

Metronet, the largest of the two private firms upgrading the Tube, collapsed after running out of cash. Despite receiving around £70 million a month of government money to upgrade nine of the 12 Tube lines - all but the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly - it forecast a £2 billion black hole.

This put it in dispute with the Mayor, who frequently condemned the firm as incompetent and called for its directors to be "hung, drawn and quartered".

This condemnation, combined with delays in its work, caused its share price to crash. When it applied for an extra £550 million to keep it going but received only £121 million, the company was put into administration. Despite the collapse, TfL performed a miracle and kept services running - though many of the station upgrades have been put on ice.

Key bored warrior. said...

THE SOUTH FEAST.Our collective pensions pay a lot of bonuses in the city of London. Scottish money is spent on educating a lot of people who go and live and pay tax in London.

Bureacrats who administer Scotland work and play in London.

Our soldiers go off and fight in Iraq and pay their taxes centrally.

We shop in shops who report profits centrally. We buy things made by companies who report profits centrally. We pay for media based in London..... When you dig down and add on the cash that is not included in the per capita amounts, you find that the SOUTH EAST U.K. is cushioned by billions of taxpayers money which pours into London from Scotland and the rest of the U.K.Scotland’s budget administers a geographic area covering one third of the UK landmass.

The present figures per head are. N.I. £9385. Scotland. £8623. Wales. £8139. England. £7121.These figures only take account of identifiable spending. ie. Money collated to the London account is monies that are spent specifically for the benefit of London.

The figures do not account for, thousands of Civil service jobs stuffed into London because it is “The Capital,”

The Foreign Office-

The MOD-

Dept.of Health-Culture and Sport-

The Treasury-

The Home Office-



Westminster including The Lords, do not count towards the London per capita account as they are regarded as for the common good of the U.K. as a whole.

A massive public subsidy pouring into London that does not show up on the books. These agencies by their very existence create in their wake thousands of spin of industries businesses and job’s to service them. As Scotland is finding out.

Professor James Mitchell of Strathclyde University say’s , there are billions spent on London that are never added to the account’s thousands and thousands of jobs centred in London simply because it is the capital of the U.K.

These jobs are counted as part of the shared U.K. total, never added to the London spend. It doesn’t matter if it part of the common U.K. effort, you can’t pretend that all the investment in London is doing any good in Aberdeen or Devon.

Key bored warrior. said...

The Millennium Dome, cost £789 million, almost twice as much as Holyrood, for what a white tent?Money plundered from the Lottery at the expense of the U.K..The Olympics are already at £5bn. And will plunder the Lottery again, starving Scottish athletes of funds for development, and with Scotland forced into a U.K. team many Scottish athletes will never see Olympic fame as they would otherwise in a Scottish team.

The Jubilee rail link at £3.5bn. 3.5 times the estimate for a Forth crossing.Scotland’s entire transport “allowance,” is £2.3bn. The new Euro Star London to Paris line has just cost us the thick end of £6bn. Great benefit to us here in Scotland.

The BBCs budget is £4bn. Half of the Scottish “allowance,” for health.

According to the BBCs annual report, 44,234 hours of TV were produced in London, compared to 2,495 in Scotland. They spent a tiny £106 million in Scotland out of a £505 million outside London. Leaving £3.5 billion INSIDE London, no wonder BBC Scotland is so utterly dire and pathetic.

Institutions classed as “National Resources,” do not count towards London Government spending.

The National Gallery gets £26 million.

National History Museum gets £45 million.

The British Museum gets £45 million.

The National Museum of Scotland is classed as “just for Scotland,” and gets £15 million per annum.

Most of the UKs citizens will never visit these “national assets,” in London, as it is to expensive to travel and stay there.The London Centric Scotlandphobic Union is a giant con and propaganda machine.

And then there is GERS which was compiled by Dr. Goudie was ordered by the Tory’s primarily to undermine the truth put forward by the SNP and many financial experts that Scotland was economically viable as an independent country.

Key bored warrior. said...

Dr. Goudie has urged politicians to treat GERS with caution as the figures used are pure mythology and propaganda, and have easily been discredited by many experts and the SNP.

The top secret McCrone report said:
It is not possible to compare these figures with an accurate estimate of Scotland’s present balance of payments position. From the state of Scotland’s economy one would expect a balance of payments deficit on current account and a rough comparison of income and expenditure estimates for GDP suggest that this could be of the order of £300m. a year in 1970/71.

Plainly this is a most unreliable figure and it will vary from year to year, but it is probably sufficient to suggest the orders of magnitude. What is quite clear is that the balance of payments gain from North Sea oil would easily swamp the existing deficit whatever its size and transform Scotland into a country with a substantial and chronic surplus.

No wonder then that the Westminster/ UK/ English parliament, (same thing) lies and contorts itself so badly to keep Scotland where they want her. Who wants a partner who you have to subsidise?

Micheal Lynch - Scotland; A new History - points out the the Scottish economy prior to the treaty was growing at around 2.5% per annum based on data from custom duties income.
Post Union there was a collapse of the Scottish economy as it was flooded with cheap imports from England causing major job losses in the burghs which 'free trade' with 'English colonies' did little to offset.

85% of of Scotland's trade prior to 1707 was with Scandanavia, Baltic, Hanseatic League and the Low Countries.

The Scottish economy did not recover to pre Treaty state until the late 1750's as its normal trading partners were blocked by England's European Wars in defence of Hanoverian possessions.

By 1713 the negative nature of the Union on the Scottish economy had been realised and was the main driver behind the Earl of Selkirk's attempt to have the treaty dissolved.

Given the natural resources in Scotland there is no evidence that Scotland gained any economic benefit from the Union during the Industrial revolution and given the many innovative engineering solutions invented by Scots - not the least vital among them being Nielson's Blast Furnace, Watt's Steam engine - the rest of the UK (aka England) would have been chasing an independent Scottish economy.

There is no historical evidence at any level that Scotland has ever had any economic benefit from the Union that it would not have accrued as an independent nation. According to Michael Lynch it would be a brave historian that would return to such 'Olympian pronouncements' on the economic benefit to Scotland of the Union Treaty.

Key bored warrior. said...

Micheal Forsyth, an ex-Scottish (Tory) Secretary, in his book on the Union Treaty comes to the same conclusion and argues that the Union Treaty no longer has any great benefit to either party and should be revoked.

Meanwhile, GERS (Government Expenditure and Revenues Statistics) leaves North Sea oil revenues out from the Scottish account but Oil companies corporation tax is credited to London. And it puts the entire cost of Trident IN the Scottish account.
They are lying and the know it.

The McCrone report in the 1970's indicates that the Scottish economy would have had rapid and strong growth as an independent nation versus the reality of stagnation under the last 302 years of Union hegemony.

Scotland account for 2009/10 was £1.3 billion in credit to the UK. So we stay in a skint UK and subsidise it.


Scotland's public finances are in a healthy position, with the country generating more income than it spends even in a period of recession, official statistics published today show. This is the fourth year in a row that Scotland has generated a current budget surplus, compared to a UK-wide deficit over the same period.

The latest Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report for 2008-09 includes a share of the UK Government's Financial Sector Interventions to support the banking sector.

Even with that spending factored in, Scotland's financial position in 2008-09 was a current budget surplus of £1.3 billion, or 0.9 per cent of GDP, including a geographical share of North Sea revenues. At the same time, the UK was in current budget deficit of £48.9 billion, or 3.4 per cent of GDP, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenues.

GERS also estimates Scotland's net fiscal balance - which factors in capital and infrastructure investment for the nation's long term benefit. On this measure Scotland had a deficit of £3.8 billion or 2.6 per cent of GDP. In comparison, the UK's deficit was substantially greater, standing at £96.1 billion or 6.7 per cent of GDP.

Across the OECD as a whole, the average net fiscal balance was 3.3 per cent of GDP in 2008. In other words, GERS shows Scotland in a stronger fiscal position than the average of the major developed economies, as well as the United Kingdom.

Key bored warrior. said...

The cumulative value of Scotland's current budget surplus over the four year period from 2005-06 to 2008-09 now stands at some £3.5 billion. Over this same period, the UK built up a deficit of £72.3 billion.

Welcoming the report, Finance Secretary John Swinney said:

"This is an extremely positive report - demonstrating beyond any doubt that Scotland is in a far stronger financial position than the UK as a whole, as well as the OECD average.

"In 2008-09, Scotland generated a current budget surplus of £1.3 billion, or 0.9 per cent of GDP, compared to a deficit for the UK of £48.9 billion, or 3.4 per cent of GDP.

"This is the fourth year in a row to record a Scottish current budget surplus - even as the UK moved into recession - and the cumulative value of Scotland's surplus since 2005-06 now stands at some £3.5 billion, compared to a UK deficit over the same period of £72.3 billion.

"These figures reinforce the case for Scotland determining its own tax and spending decisions, and managing other key economic levers, with the powers of financial responsibility and independence. That will enable us to take the decisions in Scotland needed to grow the economy, because growth is the key to moving out of the financial difficulties we face.

"As we saw in yesterday's Budget, we are left picking up the pieces of the financial mismanagement of the last Westminster Government, and the risk to recovery posed by the new UK administration.

"Yet in 2008-09, even taking into account a share of the UK's bank bail out, Scotland's own current budget balance was very substantially in credit, while the UK as a whole was in substantial deficit.

"Financial responsibility and independence provide the platform to build long-term economic prosperity and social justice in Scotland."

Key bored warrior. said...

Comparisons with the UK public sector finances

In 2008-09, the equivalent UK current budget position, including 100 per cent of all North Sea revenue, was a deficit of £48.9 billion (or 3.4 per cent of GDP).

In 2008-09, the equivalent UK position on the net fiscal balance, including 100 per cent of all North Sea revenue, and referred to in the UK Budget 2010 Report as 'net borrowing', was a deficit of £96.1 billion (or 6.7 per cent of GDP) .

These UK figures were published in tables C3 and C4 of the March 2010 UK Budget.

Presentation of financial sector interventions in GERS 2008-09

In this edition of GERS, estimates are provided of Scotland's public sector accounts both including and not including a share of the expenditure associated with the UK Government's financial sector interventions. Estimates not including the effects of the financial interventions are presented to help highlight underlying trends in the GERS data from previous years to the latest year, 2008-09. The financial crisis has clearly been a unique event, particularly over the publication period of GERS, and therefore separating out this particular element helps provide continuity with previous GERS publications.


Key bored warrior. said...

"Yes. They will run rapidly to von Rumpy and beg for scraps from a different table."

YOU SAID THAT REMEMBER THAT IF YOUR READ MY REPLY...There are beggars in the UK and they are not Scottish. You owe us an apology.

cynicalHighlander said...

KBW You have forgotten the channel tunnel, M25 and various other project which goes down as 'UK' liabilities also England is split into different regions of which London gets the biggest slice (GERS) more than NI and Scotland.

Control the media and one keeps the sheep coralled.

Captain Ranty said...


Thank you for the detailed comments.

I did say that I had only touched on a couple of points in my piece.

"You owe us an apology."

I owe you nothing. I predicted that IF Scotland gains independence she would apply for membership of the EU. Once she had joined, Scotland would apply (which means "beg" in legalese) for grants. I will apologise if you can tell me categorically that that will not be the case.

I also recall saying that Scotland does not need the Union and that she can stand on her own two feet.


smee said...

I had our MSP turn up on my doorstep a few weeks before christmas. He clearly wasn't expecting the grilling he got, including the question "why, having taken the power away from Westminster, would you ever want to then turn around and hand it to the EU?" I got a load of guff about a referendum and let the people decide, blah, blah, blah.

We shouldn't. Ever. If we do, in the course of time, become independant, the very last thing we should do is sign up to the EU. On the other hand, I can see it being a question that prompts a country wide debate, and that can't be a bad thing.

Key bored warrior. said...

YOU SAID: "Yes. They will run rapidly to von Rumpy and beg for scraps from a different table."

Your implication being that we are at present "running rapidly" and begging for Englands scraps at their table. The tone and implied sneer is very obvious. You still owe us an apology, I pity your poor bloody neighbor, and I WILL kick you hard in the bollocks if you are unmasked, assuming you have any. Judging by your insipid backpedaling you appear to have been neutered. Now fuck the fuckity fuck of.

Captain Ranty said...


I owe you fuck all.

Scotland DOES beg for grants from Westminster. Can you read at all? I already explained that to "apply" for anything from anyone is legalese for "beg".

And the last time I checked I am free to sneer all I want. At anyone or anything at any time.

Who neutered me? You?

In your dreams sonny, in your dreams.


Michael Fowke said...

I'm all for English independence, myself. English people would have a stronger sense of their identity then.

Captain Ranty said...

I agree Michael.

I never believed that "stronger together" bullshit.


Anonymous said...

Captain Ranty, I have often wondered why the unionist parties will not allow Scotland a referendum on their future.

If Scotland is such a burden on English tax payers then you'd think the London parties would be more than willing to allow Scotland to go it alone.

Anyone know why England are so desperate to hang on to Scotland a country full of drunk racist scroungers??


Captain Ranty said...


The SNP lack a majority in Holyrood so any referendum tabled will be voted down. Although some opposition parties have in the past said "Bring it on" it could be dangerous for the SNP to hold a referendum. If it was voted against by the population of Scotland another referendum would not be held for at least a generation.

Most often quoted (for retaining and disbanding the Union) is the oil revenues.

The SNP claims that the oil, along with other industries (tourism and whisky for instance) is quite enough to run a country on.

The Unionists say that we are better off together.

For what it's worth, the Scots are no more drunk, racist, or scroungey than the English, Welsh or Northern Irish.

Someone may have figures to dispute (or support) that statement but from what I have seen over the last 21 years, I believe my own statement to be accurate.


Budvar said...

Why the assumption that England wont allow a referendum on Scottish independence (the same applies to Wales)?

I have serious doubts as to whether you could get anything like a majority in your favour. If you had, Salmond would be screaming his demands from the rooftops.

You have a Scottish parliament and they don't need English approval to hold a referendum. Yes they'd need English approval for implementation, but if you received an overwelming majority any denial by Westminster would be untenable. The Scottish devolution referendum only squeaked through on a 60:40 %age of the vote and less than half the population could be bothered to turn out and vote.

Unknown said...

Sort of off topic but the great Vic
Beck gives us the key to escaping the control system. In this recording he delivers the message to music.

You are not a NAME, the NAMES the NAME:


Anonymous said...

Captain R,

My question is why the Unionist parties will not allow Scotland to hold a referendum?

"The unionist say we are better together"

Why? How do they work that out?

Like KBW has made his case clear and loud I'd like someone somewhere to convince me that the union is good for Scotland and England. Anyone??

Having lived in England and Scotland I am well aware of both countries have drunks and scroungers racists. I was reacting to posters on here!


Captain Ranty said...


I dont know. I haven't really paid enough attention to the Unionists. I did hear one guy say in a pub that since the Act of Union was signed we haven't warred with each other. I suggested that he hadn't attended a Scotland vs England football match...

Another guy said we should stay together so that we dont have to whip out our passports at the border.

One other said that historically, we were better in than out. But he did not offer any evidence to support that.

Perhaps a search for "unionist blogs in Scotland" may reveal something to back up their claims?


Captain Ranty said...

Here's one:


And another..

This bloke thinks it's all over bar the shouting:



Conan the Librarian™ said...

Hmm. Lots of English Nationalists on here.

Sorry, British.

Anonymous said...

"The SNP claims that the oil, along with other industries (tourism and whisky for instance) is quite enough to run a country on."

If you are prepared to make such stupid statements can you please provide a reference to where the SNP has said this?

Any one who follows Scottish politics and lives in Scotland knows that what you have claimed the SNP have said is just bollocks on your part.

Stop making stuff up and embarrassing your self, you sound as if you are 10, are you?

How do other countries survive?

Guess what on their commerce.

When was the last time the UK was in surplus?

The much trumpeted financial center of London is being deserted by international finance companies and banks as fast as they can get out. London will be lucky if it has a whelk stall in a few years.

The UK is still paying for the Napoleonic wars, and in 200 years time will still be paying for the Middle East carnage it helped to create.

For survival reasons, Scotland needs to separate from England ASAP. That separation is not Englands to give but Scotlands to take. The independence of our nation will be worth much much more than any Bank of England fiscal stimulus, or any thing any English chancellor will do. The animosity and bigotry displayed on this blog by your band of little Engerlanders is quite breath taking in your ignorance and how far up your own rectums you are.

PS Thanks KBW for setting the record straight. There has been not one rebuttal of your excellent points put forward. keep up the good work.


Captain Ranty said...

I'm nearly seven and a half, you chippy little cunt.

So, in your empty little head, trading oil on the global market isn't commerce?

Attracting millions of visitors to Scotland every year isn't commerce?

Selling millions of bottles of whisky all over the planet isn't commerce?

I gave three examples (and I even said "for instance") because I had no desire to list the dozens of things that Scotland does and you get on your high horse?

And if you have never heard Salmond talk about Scotlands oil then you either don't live here, never listen to the news, or you are here simply to cause trouble.

Most of the bigotry, ignorance and stupidity is contained in your gormless wee post.

Fuck off. There's a good lad.


will said...

who's the genius scots nationalist complaining that the channel tunnel was unfairly built in the south of england?
need any more be said to illustrate the ignorance of collectivists?
im not scottish, im not english - im Will. i dont have a flag or a constitution or even a devolved assembly. i pity anyone who celebrates such circuses.
who cares whether scots MP's vote on english issues or whether an english based parliament still maintains power over scotland? fuck the whole lot and leave it at natural human individual sovereignty and a society of voluntary organisation. if a bunch of individuals want to dig a tunnel under the sea then they can so long as they dont force anyone to pay for it. likewise for absolutely everything else - health, education, security etc. there is no such thing as democracy or public money or public goods. all this squabbling over who must be forced to pay for whoever else's brats to waste years playing at study is bollocks. noone should be forced to do anything whether a 'majority' 'vote' for it or not.
and before anyone thinks theyre being clever im happy to be called an anarchist. happy new year flag wavers!

Anonymous said...

Fuck of you English wank stains. Just stick to shoving your willies up each others bums and shagging your sisters thats all you inbred limp wristed whinging fuckwits were ever good at. No wonder the world laughs at you.

Yours sincerely, Angus Macfuckyees.

Budvar said...

I'd like to take a straw poll amongst those "For" Scottish independence as to whether "Angus MacFucktard" has a *VALID* point of view or if he really needs to up the dosage on his medication?

Anonymous said...

I am posting this comment as someone who lives in Scotland and is Scottish.

Personally, I see the SNP as a gamble. More often than not, people will talk about the imminent dangers of Scotland becoming independent and how unviable it is (certainly this is the viewpoinr from a lot of people I've encountered).
I find the recent election results rather interesting, to say the least, with regards to the SNP's majority victory. I, personally speaking, see the SNP as a stepping stone in a challenging (and perhaps correct?) direction towards developing our country further. So far, it seems that the only way to have gained independence (and realistically achieve it) would be to vote for the SNP and hope that the referendum held comes out favouring the split. However, this doesn't necessarily dictate that the SNP would always be the favoured party after this vote.

Personally, I'd welcome the opportunity of Scotland maintaning its own and thriving in such an environment, as ut'd be an opportunity to prove ourselves and our worth separate of outside help (for the most part (hoefully!)). One thing that does dishearten me, however, is the lack of proposals suggested (in a publicised way) to overcome issues such as the financial situation from thereon in, the military situation etc etc. I believe that if such solutions are available then they should be more readily accessible to the public (via better political advertising).

For Captain Ranty (really approve of the name, by the way :) ), I'd ask for you to give Scotland a chance, even if we became independent, we can sometimes surprise people with the solutions that we come up with. SNP may be a quick answer to people's wishes but may not be the permanent one that we're all looking for :)

p.s. If anyone has any links to proposals made by any parties concerning a split could they please link me to such things (it'd be much appreciated).

From a "looking to be more politically enlightened Glaswegian" of 22 :)

Captain Ranty said...

I am going to move this to my more recent post on the subject Anon.

You make a lot of good points but no-one will see them here.


woods77 said...

hmmm...I think you should rethink the chances of Scottish independence after those electoral results!

Captain Ranty said...

I did!

See my post of a few days ago.


Anonymous said...

Yes I think Scottish independence would be quite a problem for the rest of the uk. A lot of people say Scotland is expensive for the uk and they should be happy to get rid of it but I have done research and Scotland is the only country to have masses of oil on it's land and not be filthy rich because of it. The reason for that is all the money goes to Westminister. Then the parliment gives Scotland a budget to spend.

Plus the whiskey industry is worth billions. That all goes to Westminister too. If Scotland were to leave then the oil, the whiskey, tourism and everything else scotland brings in (money in the upper billions) would all be taken away. I think the rest of the UK's economy would take a huge hit as a result.

I've heard the union between Scotland and England being compared to a marriage and in this divorce one party is going to take a great deal of the money and since Scotland makes a lot (plus they wouldn't have to pay for the monarchy anymore which they don't see a return on) they might come out better because of it.

Plus Alec Salmond is doing a great job with Scotland with the little power Westminister is giving him now plus he is fighting for more. He has gotten rid of toll bridges and prescription charges and his recent majority win shows that his popularity is growing and perhaps more people are begining to trust his view for Scotland's furture. I think independence will happen. No-one can predict the results but I think there will be consequences for the rest of the uk plus a lot of work for Scotland.

But I think is will be worth it. A lot of couples come out of a divorce stronger. Perhaps the UK will be like that.

Anonymous said...

I am no economist but I am quite worried about Scottish independence. I use to think like a lot of people who have posted saying that we would be better off without Scotland but considering that lately scotland's jobs and income is increasing while the rest of the uk isn't doing so well I don't really have a leg to stand on anymore.

Plus I have seen David Cameron on the news saying he will do everything within his power to keep the uk together. If Scotland is such a drain on the British economy then why does he want to keep the union so bad. Now I may not be very fond of David Cameron but I know he is not daft. He does not just feel that way for sentimental reasons. Scotland must be bringing something to the table and something worth fighting for too.

Like I said I am no expert but I think that the rest of Britain would take a hit if Scotland were to leave.

Anonymous said...

message from scotland , we are the same as any other ppl , we want peace, we want freedom for all ppl regardless of race religeon or creed, we are sovereigns and shall stay sovereign, there are no borders just different accents, we are all being screwed against the wall, well some are , but me , no i am not for screwing, i am free,, perception is mightier than fiction . i could write forever on this topic, but will leave you with a link , if your interested , check us out ... http://scottishsovereignsontheland.ning.com/

Captain Ranty said...


I am a member of Scottish Sovereigns.

See you in the chat-box sometime.


Freedom said...

Check this out!

Elizabeth 2 is not the lawful monarch.

ROCK-SOLID taped evidence:-


She has broken her contract with the British people and is NOT the lawful monarch.

Pass it on!

Captain Ranty said...


Thank you very much!

I have created a new post.

A great find!!!


Anonymous said...

who cares anyway...England is better than scotland due to its diversity....in scotland people are just proud for nothing..oh yeah,perhaps it because of the oil(non renewable),the british isles and buchanan coach station....lol....I love ENGLAND nwayz....
scots gotta think wisely on this issue....i'm gone

Anonymous said...

"In the interim Scotland sent more than £125 billion to the British Treasury in London in oil revenues – and almost all of it stayed there, bankrolling such adventures as the Iraq war and Clyde-based nuclear weapons which are an affront to popular Scottish opinion. But oil is just part of the argument. Even without oil, an independent Scotland would thrive, just like most small nations inside or outside the European Union"

There's a fact. Something that hopefully next time you will use in your essay. It will make you more successful, like Scottish Independence when it comes.

Anonymous said...

My neighbour once told me, quite venomously, "Scottish independence has nothing to do with you!"

I think your wee neighbour is the emotive type, Clearly he's allowing his heart to rule his head, as a Englishman living in Scotland your entitled to a vote the same as everyone else, maybe your wee neighbour should try to persuade you to use that vote to further his cause lol

As a proud Scot I'm more than happy to see the English settle in Scotland setting up businesses and finding employment paying their taxes and contributing to the economy of this Wee Country when it get's it Independence.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Anon.

Scotland has been good to me. I have no problems contributing my fair share.

To be honest, my neighbour is a nice bloke. Just passionate. Nothing wrong with that at all.