State of the Union with Scotland.

#1
On the Alex Salmond thread GT2001 says most Jocks want to remain in the Union, but maybe not as it is now.

I've always wondered why do the Jocks feel as if they are not equal partners in the Union (some may even argue more than equal), and seem to think the English have somehow got one over on them? If the details need changing, what would you like to change?

Genuine question as I've never really understood the almost inferiority complex a lot of you have north of the border when it comes to the English.
 
#2
Probably the biggest thing is for the English to stop bl**dy whinging about us all the time.

One of the things that has always mistified me is if we cost yu lot down south quite so much of your hard earned cash, why are you so keen to keep on ruling us, surely you would be better off to just cast us ungratefull PJ adrift.
 
#3
It's my understanding that The Union offers us Scots more than it does the English with regards to subsidies from the English tax payer far exceeding whatever revenue is generated from North Sea Oil.

When all is said and done regarding Broon and co., don't the Jocks actually do quite well with a UK Labour government in power seeing as a considerable percentage of us are idle wasters living on benefits?

I'd certainly vote to remain a part of The Union anyway. Scottish parliament just comes across as another gravy train - what exactly was the point of devolved government and these additional MSPs? :? Can't say I'm feeling any benefits of a £400+ million building as an example.
 
#4
maxi_77 said:
Probably the biggest thing is for the English to stop bl**dy whinging about us all the time.

One of the things that has always mistified me is if we cost yu lot down south quite so much of your hard earned cash, why are you so keen to keep on ruling us, surely you would be better off to just cast us ungratefull PJ adrift.
Can you give some examples, you seem to be doing exactly that which you accuse the English of?
 
#6
Yes, the English do whinge a great deal, I'll grant you that.

Perhaps it's because the last couple of Prime Ministers have been Scottish and generally abhorred, and it looks like either way, the next Prime Minister will also be Scottish.

I heard one that the names that the English are quite often referred to in Scotland, sassenach, translates to "enemy" in Gaelic. Not sure if that is true, but teaching your kids to refer to your closest neighbours as "enemies" hardly encourages a friendly rapport. If I were to teach my kids derrogatory names about any ethnic group, you can imagine how that would be treated.

Perhaps it also hasn't helped for the English to hear that Scottish sports fans have chosen to support France when France and England are in competition? Little wonder then that people feel that the historical hatred, fuelled by Hollywood's misrepresentation of Wallace, warrants a reciprocal response?

Rivallry is only to be expected in any family, I think most people down south regard the Scots as complete equals, and I'm quite sure the same applies to the Scottish. Time will tell, but the Scots are a canny bunch, and I think Salmond's fine words are generally seen for what they are - political bullsh*t.

United we stand, divided we fall. And as a Welshman with Scottish parents, living in England, I am proud to be just British.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#7
One of the main bones of contention in Scotland (and I believe the other celtic nations) is the way the meedja portray things. For instance prior to a game between Scotland and Wales say, the commentators will spend their time talking about England and their chances. This happens in most sports and is extremely irritating. Any world cup soccer game and it is a countdown to when the commentators mention 1966. FFS England won the world cup, well done, but it was over 40 years ago; what have they done since?

If the English Broadcasting Corporation (sorry BBC) were less biased then perhaps relationships would improve slightly.

Just my opinion so please feel free to ignore it, as it is only that of a porridge wog.
 
#8
Ord_Sgt said:
maxi_77 said:
Probably the biggest thing is for the English to stop bl**dy whinging about us all the time.

One of the things that has always mistified me is if we cost yu lot down south quite so much of your hard earned cash, why are you so keen to keep on ruling us, surely you would be better off to just cast us ungratefull PJ adrift.
Can you give some examples, you seem to be doing exactly that which you accuse the English of?
A hint: try to say and write 'our Scottish friends' or 'our Scottish brothers' instead of 'the Jocks'.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#9
KGB_resident said:
Ord_Sgt said:
maxi_77 said:
Probably the biggest thing is for the English to stop bl**dy whinging about us all the time.

One of the things that has always mistified me is if we cost yu lot down south quite so much of your hard earned cash, why are you so keen to keep on ruling us, surely you would be better off to just cast us ungratefull PJ adrift.
Can you give some examples, you seem to be doing exactly that which you accuse the English of?
A hint: try to say and write 'our Scotish friends' or 'our Scotish brothers' instead of 'the Jocks'.
Sergey - bollox. To use your phrases is just PC bullshit. We are the Jocks and proud of it. I don't mind being refered to as one of "the Jocks"; reminds everyone of who we are.
 
#10
As Auld Yin has said, Jocks is an affectionate term not an insulting one, besides how gay is 'our Scotish brothers'. :oops:
 
#11
Unless your surname is "Trapp"!

Jock s trapp. Geddit?
 
#12
Ord_Sgt said:
maxi_77 said:
Probably the biggest thing is for the English to stop bl**dy whinging about us all the time.

One of the things that has always mistified me is if we cost yu lot down south quite so much of your hard earned cash, why are you so keen to keep on ruling us, surely you would be better off to just cast us ungratefull PJ adrift.
Can you give some examples, you seem to be doing exactly that which you accuse the English of?
Oh so we can't even complain now.

I am, having been gainfully employed from the day I left school in 1964 till now and an ex service man still theoritically subject to re-employment without notice, pissed of to the nth degree of being described continually as a sponger, scrounger, whinger etc etc. I like most people have paid for every thing I own through the sweat of my brow, and have enough self pride to find the continual harping at me and my countrymen as not a joke but bl**dy offensive. Onceis funny, twice mildly amusing but day after day not funny or amusing at all. Yes I understand just how the immigrants feel because the English have treated me much the same.
 
#13
Auld-Yin said:
KGB_resident said:
Ord_Sgt said:
maxi_77 said:
Probably the biggest thing is for the English to stop bl**dy whinging about us all the time.

One of the things that has always mistified me is if we cost yu lot down south quite so much of your hard earned cash, why are you so keen to keep on ruling us, surely you would be better off to just cast us ungratefull PJ adrift.
Can you give some examples, you seem to be doing exactly that which you accuse the English of?
A hint: try to say and write 'our Scotish friends' or 'our Scotish brothers' instead of 'the Jocks'.
Sergey - bollox. To use your phrases is just PC bullshit. We are the Jocks and proud of it. I don't mind being refered to as one of "the Jocks"; reminds everyone of who we are.
OK. And what about expressions like 'our English friends' and 'our English brothers'? Do you think that for the Scots the English are friends and brothers?
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
KGB_resident said:
A hint: try to say and write 'our Scottish friends' or 'our Scottish brothers' instead of 'the Jocks'.
Maybe you have to be a native English speaker to realise how insincere and sarcastic that sounds. Flowery prose just doesn't translate well in English.
 
#15
RP578 said:
KGB_resident said:
A hint: try to say and write 'our Scottish friends' or 'our Scottish brothers' instead of 'the Jocks'.
Maybe you have to be a native English speaker to realise how insincere and sarcastic that sounds. Flowery prose just doesn't translate well in English.
:D :D :D

It was a joke (as many my posts here).

Of course, I'm not a native English speaker but be sure I feel sematic colouring (at least sometimes) pretty well.

On a serious note, I believe that the very idea of breaking of the Union is absolutely stupid.
 
#16
KGB_resident said:
Auld-Yin said:
KGB_resident said:
Ord_Sgt said:
maxi_77 said:
Probably the biggest thing is for the English to stop bl**dy whinging about us all the time.

One of the things that has always mistified me is if we cost yu lot down south quite so much of your hard earned cash, why are you so keen to keep on ruling us, surely you would be better off to just cast us ungratefull PJ adrift.
Can you give some examples, you seem to be doing exactly that which you accuse the English of?
A hint: try to say and write 'our Scotish friends' or 'our Scotish brothers' instead of 'the Jocks'.
Sergey - bollox. To use your phrases is just PC bullshit. We are the Jocks and proud of it. I don't mind being refered to as one of "the Jocks"; reminds everyone of who we are.
OK. And what about expressions like 'our English friends' and 'our English brothers'? Do you think that for the Scots the English are friends and brothers?
Simple answer - no. Don't try and put across a Russian ideal of "brotherhood" into the discussion here. It simply doesn't work within either a Scottish or English mentality.

As to the original question, I agree with maxi's first comments. I'd also like an answer from Ord Sgt to his question too. It is one that has baffled me over the last few years.

One of the things that has always mistified me is if we cost yu lot down south quite so much of your hard earned cash, why are you so keen to keep on ruling us...?
Anyone?
 
#17
I'm a Scot and a lot of Scots need a wake up. The Barnett formula gives us a shitload of extra funding compared to equally hard-up English regions - how many people realise that when London spends a load of money on Crossrail Scotland gets a massive slice of extra dough in "Barnett consequentials"? The other thing people don't realise is that the figures you see for public spending per head are always "excluding benefits". Why exclude? Add these in and the figures for Scotland look even worse. Then we have to consider the horrendous levels of public sector dominance in ther Scottish economy. Loads don't have jobs and them that do are typically employed by the state - we'd have a hard job finding enough goods and services to sell abroad to pay the wages of all the social workers and local government officers we have. Finally, the nonsense about the oil money - ie if all the oil money is ascribed to Scotland as if Scotland was an independent country then Scotland is in surplus. Oh, I see. And if the oil had been found off the cost of Cornwall we would said, "No that's England's oil, all there's on separation..." The oil was found when we were united. On "divorce" the only fair split is pro-rata, 5/45ths for Scotland 40/45ths for England (and they can pay for the rest from their share!). On that basis Scotland would be well and truly f*****d.

What's the problem some Scots have with the English? Well, some Scots know, deep down, they're in the wrong, and some of them would rather get angry than admit it and change. Better to portray yourself as a persecuted victim than admit to being a lazy git.
 
#18
gobbyidiot said:
I'm a Scot and a lot of Scots need a wake up. The Barnett formula gives us a shitload of extra funding compared to equally hard-up English regions - how many people realise that when London spends a load of money on Crossrail Scotland gets a massive slice of extra dough in "Barnett consequentials"? The other thing people don't realise is that the figures you see for public spending per head are always "excluding benefits". Why exclude? Add these in and the figures for Scotland look even worse. Then we have to consider the horrendous levels of public sector dominance in ther Scottish economy. Loads don't have jobs and them that do are typically employed by the state - we'd have a hard job finding enough goods and services to sell abroad to pay the wages of all the social workers and local government officers we have. Finally, the nonsense about the oil money - ie if all the oil money is ascribed to Scotland as if Scotland was an independent country then Scotland is in surplus. Oh, I see. And if the oil had been found off the cost of Cornwall we would said, "No that's England's oil, all there's on separation..." The oil was found when we were united. On "divorce" the only fair split is pro-rata, 5/45ths for Scotland 40/45ths for England (and they can pay for the rest from their share!). On that basis Scotland would be well and truly f*****d.

What's the problem some Scots have with the English? Well, some Scots know, deep down, they're in the wrong, and some of them would rather get angry than admit it and change. Better to portray yourself as a persecuted victim than admit to being a lazy git.
You started well with the Barnett formula which is a fair comment. Your oil comment is nonsensical and certainly not legally correct. There are strict rules for the division of national land rights and your divorce pro-rata idea doesn't fall in line with them.

In regard to your last para - explain yourself, please. Why are those people holding a different opinion than you in the wrong?

I'd really like the last sentence clarified too. You infer I'm a lazy git. Why should I be thought as such when I know there will be hardship if there is division between Scotland and England? I'm prepared to work for a successful Scotland. You prefer to accept the extra cash of the Barnett formula, do you? You obviously do if you are happy with the status quo.

Sweeping statements add nothing to the discussion other than to annoy, don't you agree?.
 
#19
I'm with Auld Yin, it is mostly to do with the Sporting Competitions that winds me up.

If an English team is doing well then they are English, if it's Scottish then they are British.

I know we have never won the World Cup, but do we need to be reminded of the fact that England won it 42 years ago everytime they kick a ball.

Or the fact that some referee sent off David Beckahm in France 98 when he is refereeing a Champions League game 9 years later.

Other than that I don't support whoever is playing against England (the wife is English and she won't let me), but I am not jumping for joy when they win either :D

Deep down though wwe are on top of England for a reason - we are just better people :p
 
#20
in_the_cheapseats said:
gobbyidiot said:
I'm a Scot and a lot of Scots need a wake up. The Barnett formula gives us a shitload of extra funding compared to equally hard-up English regions - how many people realise that when London spends a load of money on Crossrail Scotland gets a massive slice of extra dough in "Barnett consequentials"? The other thing people don't realise is that the figures you see for public spending per head are always "excluding benefits". Why exclude? Add these in and the figures for Scotland look even worse. Then we have to consider the horrendous levels of public sector dominance in ther Scottish economy. Loads don't have jobs and them that do are typically employed by the state - we'd have a hard job finding enough goods and services to sell abroad to pay the wages of all the social workers and local government officers we have. Finally, the nonsense about the oil money - ie if all the oil money is ascribed to Scotland as if Scotland was an independent country then Scotland is in surplus. Oh, I see. And if the oil had been found off the cost of Cornwall we would said, "No that's England's oil, all there's on separation..." The oil was found when we were united. On "divorce" the only fair split is pro-rata, 5/45ths for Scotland 40/45ths for England (and they can pay for the rest from their share!). On that basis Scotland would be well and truly f*****d.

What's the problem some Scots have with the English? Well, some Scots know, deep down, they're in the wrong, and some of them would rather get angry than admit it and change. Better to portray yourself as a persecuted victim than admit to being a lazy git.
You started well with the Barnett formula which is a fair comment. Your oil comment is nonsensical and certainly not legally correct. There are strict rules for the division of national land rights and your divorce pro-rata idea doesn't fall in line with them.

In regard to your last para - explain yourself, please. Why are those people holding a different opinion than you in the wrong?

I'd really like the last sentence clarified too. You infer I'm a lazy git. Why should I be thought as such when I know there will be hardship if there is division between Scotland and England? I'm prepared to work for a successful Scotland. You prefer to accept the extra cash of the Barnett formula, do you? You obviously do if you are happy with the status quo.

Sweeping statements add nothing to the discussion other than to annoy, don't you agree?.
I am unaware of any rules for the "division of national land rights" - where would these rules come from? International law relates to relations between nations not within them, then there is the law of the sea (which not everyone accepts), various agreements on air space, an emerging body of law on crimes against humanity..........................I'm not sure which law would regulate the split of oil assets, particularly when we consider that England and Scotland in a real sense ceased to exist in 1707 - legally both parliaments disappeared and a United Kingdom parliament emerged and "the British", who began to be created (at the latest) by James I certainly came into existence at that point. Rules about "nations" (even if you could find some) wouldn't apply. We are talking about the creation of two new nations from the one that exists at the moment. In that task pro-rata on the basis of population seems fair. The thing that makes me laugh is that people who suggest otherwise never suggest that the national debt get split evenly, or our future payments to the EU.

As to the business of "sweeping statements" - note my strategic use of the word "some" Scots. In point of fact I do think the central belt is full of people who have had 25 years on incapacity benefit and spend their time finding people to blame other than themselves - and independent stats bear this out.

As to the business of working to make an independent Scotland work. I am happy being British, but that doesn't imply that I think we should spend our lives trying to persuade the rest of the UK to tolerate every ill-founded claim. Criticising the present settlement, even to our short-term disadvantage, and being nevertheless a unionist, is not inconsistent.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads