1707 act Ceased

[welsh]

Originally posted by Foxx

Can you prove that Scottish independence will not led to violence and a British civil war? No, you can't!!! and the historic example is that a breakup of a nation more frequently than not does led to civil war.

The truth would be that the English don't give a toss for the scots, getting rid of the scots would leave the English at least 15 Billion pounds richer per year(the ammount in handouts the scots get from the English, GDP per head in England would rise (the scots+welsh+n irish for so long living on handouts drag down the UK <England> GDP figures, taxes could be cut in England ( 15 billion pounds spare), could somebody point out the gains England gets from having the scots onboard?.

[Foxx]

Originally posted by welsh

The truth would be that the English don't give a toss for the scots, getting rid of the scots would leave the English at least 15 Billion pounds richer per year(the ammount in handouts the scots get from the English, GDP per head in England would rise (the scots+welsh+n irish for so long living on handouts drag down the UK <England> GDP figures, taxes could be cut in England ( 15 billion pounds spare), could somebody point out the gains England gets from having the scots onboard?.

And how many billions would England have to spend in order to build a "New Hadrian Wall" like that Israel has created to protect itself from terrorism?

Again you assume that a republican Scotland will be a peaceful place and not threaten the security of England, which judging by past history may not be the case.

[welsh]

Originally posted by Foxx

And how many billions would England have to spend in order to build a "New Hadrian Wall" like that Israel has created to protect itself from terrorism?

Again you assume that a republican Scotland will be a peaceful place and not threaten the security of England, which judging by past history may not be the case.

Are you neil capel or someone else from snpy party?

[Foxx]

Originally posted by welsh

Are you neil capel or someone else from snpy party?

Nope!

I'm a Texan of Scottish ancestry and of libertarian political orientation (I think a government should be strong in national defense and law enforcement, but should not regulate business) who is a card carrying member of both the VFW and Republican Party of the USA. Also, I'm a firm supporter of both Bush and Blair largely for their leadership in the war against Islamofascist terrorism.

In regards to the creation of a Republic of Scotland -- This is a matter for the Scots to decide. I simply offer some reasoned arguments against a Scottish Republic, especially of the issue of a "Peaceful Transfer of Power" -- which, if history is to be the judge, will be anything but peaceful.

In regards to Neil, I understand that he has been for a republic for quite some time, although his politics are to the right of center. This is in contrast to most Scottish republicans (and English as well) who tend to be socialists of one variety or other. I would point out to Neil and the other Scots who support capitalism that they will not be well represented in a new Scottish Republic.

[Sire-Chris]

GREAT point. The whole independance movement on both sides should be halted, because of a wall. There you go.

You can tell your not in scotland!

[aNonnyMoose]

Originally posted by Foxx
And how many billions would England have to spend in order to build a "New Hadrian Wall" like that Israel has created to protect itself from terrorism?

I'd like to see the evidence on which you base these puerile remarks. Can you please provide us with references which 'prove' your theory that Scotland's becoming Independent from England would immediately turn the Scots into imitations of Palestinian suicide bombers? Plus, of course, the evidence that the English have treated us the same way the Israelis have treated the Palestinians, therebye justifying an armed response?

Had a good look?

Can't find any?

Now why am I not surprised.

Originally posted by Foxx
Again you assume that a republican Scotland will be a peaceful place and not threaten the security of England, which judging by past history may not be the case.

Why should a republican Scotland threaten the security of England? Are you basing this on republican America threatening the security of any country which dares to disagree with it? Because I would say that if you are doing so, then you sadly mistake the mindset of the Scots. Apart from the ill-fated Darien Scheme, can you quote any instance in our history where Scotland has deliberately set out to conquer and colonise another country?

No, I didn't think so.

Read up on some history. Study the politics of a few countries other than the USA. And then come back when you now a bit more about life in the real world....

[Foxx]

Originally posted by aNonnyMoose

I'd like to see the evidence on which you base these puerile remarks. Can you please provide us with references which 'prove' your theory that Scotland's becoming Independent from England would immediately turn the Scots into imitations of Palestinian suicide bombers? Plus, of course, the evidence that the English have treated us the same way the Israelis have treated the Palestinians, therebye justifying an armed response?

Had a good look?

Can't find any?

Now why am I not surprised.

OUCH!

The old grey Foxx hit a nerve, did I?

No, I can't prove that a republican Scotland would be a staging base for Islamic Jihadists and/or the homeland of radical leftists -- I simply point out that with independence Scotland enters what could be a revolutionary period of her history -- and who knows what the outcome might be.

The best case would be the status quo as now exists under the monarchy with England except that Scotland would be standing on its own. Of course, this after spending billions of dollars putting in place all the organizations necessary for an independent country, like an army, navy, air force, civil service and so forth.

This begs the question: why take the risk? Are the Scots being oppressed by the English? Would an independent Scotland be more wealthy and happy than it is at present?

Originally posted by Foxx
Again you assume that a republican Scotland will be a peaceful place and not threaten the security of England, which judging by past history may not be the case.

Why should a republican Scotland threaten the security of England? Are you basing this on republican America threatening the security of any country which dares to disagree with it? Because I would say that if you are doing so, then you sadly mistake the mindset of the Scots. Apart from the ill-fated Darien Scheme, can you quote any instance in our history where Scotland has deliberately set out to conquer and colonise another country?

No, I didn't think so.

[/b][/quote]

The "mindset" of the Scots may well change under the propaganda from a radical leftist regime after independence. The pages of history are witness to the fact that failed regimes often turn to foreign adventure when faced with serious problems at home. Remember the Falkland War of the 1980s? A failed Argentina regime went to war with its traditional ally -- the UK.

Read up on some history. Study the politics of a few countries other than the USA. And then come back when you now a bit more about life in the real world....

The old grey Foxx is not only a student of history but at age 56 has lived at great deal of history in a 20 year career in the U.S. military, and served something like 15 of those years in countries other than the USA. In fact, one experience I'll never forget is a brief trip to Cambodia in 1967 -- I thought this country was one of the most peaceful and beautiful countries in the world, filled with a wonderful, gentle people. In 1975 Cambodia fell to the Communists who murdered something like one-third of the population and nearly destroyed its thousand year civilization.

Be careful what you pray for: Your prayer may be answered.