Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

azda

England Frightened Of Scottish Indepemdence

Recommended Posts

Good news/happy feely stories make for dull media. It ain't going to happen. Conflicting views brings surprises (good media), agreements mean you already know the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...most of the horrors in the last hundred years have been based on ideas of nationalism and ethnicity.

...I'm all for systems that bind humanity together rather than defining differences

The greatest sense spoken on the matter, David... I also definitely agree with DaveG's observations on the nitty gritty of it all!

I'd say your view David is enlightened in its origin, and a refreshing change to the common view on things! :)

Hear hear :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back Ed11 and he will bugger them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother in Law was a Jock married to an English husband brought up in Ireland.We are still British and some of us very proud.

The Union Jack is a proud statement.Royal Brittania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a person of Scottish descent I can offer a unique opinion. Quite inconvenient the truth about the whole Union of 1707 it is - it really was not the Anglish that wanted the whole deal - but rather the Scots. There was a little trifle in Scots economics called the "Darien Scheme" which was a colonial project in what is now Panama in Central America. It was Scotland's attempt at a colony that failed miserably and practically bankrupted the whole country. So Scots politicians brought up the whole Act of Union idea with the English parliament - seeking in return for their political acquiescence to a United Kingdom a practical financial bailout in the form of the "Equivalent Fund" which was paid out by England to Scotland into the 1720s.

Fast forward three centuries - the whole Royal Bank of Scotland bailout by the British Treasury. Hmmm.

Autonomy - certainly. A clean break, might wanna think about that, could have some narsty consequences.

I believe the whole bailout started at Northern Rock (an English Bank who incurred Bad debts from the USA i believe, oh those colonies) Of course RBS were in the firing line. But it was far from THE only bank to be bailed out Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is how you define a country - should we have independence for the Kingdom of Strathclyde or Mercia?

Many boundaries worldwide have been drawn by politicians without due regard to geography or peoples, most of the horrors in the last hundred years have been based on ideas of nationalism and ethnicity.

Having spent time in Kosova in 2001, I'm all for systems that bind humanity together rather than defining differences

Troubles is David, steathclyde is'nt a country, its a region within Scotland which in turn is a country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, i have to say, its England who don't want Scotland to leave, not the other way around and there is obvious reasons to that. We pay more in tax to Westminster than we receive back pro head of population yet we can afford to have free Health prescriptions and University fees (for those living and being Scottish) Weatminster and all those who reside there are just a bunch of leeches and parasites sucking the life out of the people they Govern dipping their hands in the sweetie jar.

Just a few days back i was reading that a Tory Party donor received a Billion pound NHS contract, strange that eh. As i said, just a load of parasites who are in it to make themselves richer and the poorer even moreso

Dave,

I agree that England doesn't want to Scotland to go, but I'm not at all sure that view is based on economics, more a genuine affection for Scotland. You say that you pay more taxes but that isn't accepted by the IFS which in 2012 concluded that Scotland receives about £200 more per head of population than the people in England do. To quote from their report, which I would trust far more than anything a politician says:

'Whilst uncertainty over how to allocate spending in some areas like defence might change the magnitude of the difference, it is not big enough to affect the broad conclusion that spending per head is substantially higher in Scotland.'

If you then add in the SNPs uncosted social spending promises, plus the costs of achieving independence and I'm not convinced of the financial argument.

I think you're listening to Tory Waffle Dave. Have a read

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/breaking-news-9-3-is-a-smaller-number-than-9-9-indyref/

You may also try this for a read

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/new-report-scots-paying-more-tax-than-rest-of-uk.20777183

Edited by azda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Rock should have been allowed to go to the wall. For people to cry that their life savings were in danger should be a salutory lesson in the art of not putting all eggs in one basket. For those who put more than the compensation limit on deposit - you took a gamble and by rights should have lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I rather favour Scottish independence (although is any country truly independent these days?) for all sorts of bizarre reasons;

1) Ulster Unionism? The effect will be interesting...

2) The Union Jack? would we change it or pretend nothing had happened and carry on rather like we did when doggedly putting the fleur de lys and the legend 'Fra... Rex' on our coins two centuries after Calais had returned to France, or grabbing that extra year of 'Ind Imp' on our coins after Indian independence.

3) English National identity? As it stands we don't have one, we regard ourselves as British. When the Scots play 'Flower of Scotland' and the Welsh 'Men of Harlech' we just trot out that awful dirge of a British National Anthem that pre-supposes we all subscribe to the infallibility of the House of Windsor. Do you think we could have our own one please? Not sure an English identity will be pretty but it least it will be ours.

4) The utter confusion that multi-nationals will get themselves into - you know, the ones who refer to London, United Kingdom or whatever, when that address has never really existed.

And that's just scratching the surface. Go for it Jock, you might even do us a favour!

(hides behind the sofa...)

I Have always said we should change our national anthem to Land of Hope and Glory, even if its for times where England plays Wales, Scotland or N-Ireland In the Rugby ( i would have said football too but from what I see they don't bother singing the national anthem any more anyway)

I agree with what, I think Azda has been saying about Westminster using Scotland as a trial run for policies as you can see that happening, but what you have to realise of course is Scotland ( and the north) is predominately yellow and then red in its support of course the LIb Dem's have been a trailing party since their formation and thus neither of the main parties care about them, due to their large area to voter ratio.

As for Scottish independence I believe that it wont happen ( at least not in this referendum) the vote has been swinging around the 30-40% mark for years now and I don't think it will change enough in time. Do I want it? not really I don't see the need to see the United Kingdom split, I do understand that people fee that they need to have the ability to govern themselves how they see fit, but splitting up will only cause problems for both sides, England will loose vital Scottish industries ( oil+gas, Salmon and fishing industry (Salmon and fisheries in Scotland is worth £millions-billions annually) ect) and as for Scotland because its such a highland country It will be heavily reliant on imports which with little competitive industry will see an eventual economic collapse.

As a marine scientist, I see another problem as well when countries split, the two new countries get so focused on trying to make it work they tend to forget the sea, overfishing and other damaging practices become widespread and eventually fisheries collapse and they are vital for many economic +social functions. I believe this happened in Ireland when they split and large fishing villages/ ports collapsed. and there are a few Asian and African Countries which this also happened too.

I Understand ( through my short time on this earth) that this country has problems, but instead of running off like a spoilt child which gets neither party anywhere, would It not be easier and better for both sides so sit down and talk about the problems and reasons behind it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Rock should have been allowed to go to the wall. For people to cry that their life savings were in danger should be a salutory lesson in the art of not putting all eggs in one basket. For those who put more than the compensation limit on deposit - you took a gamble and by rights should have lost.

I'm sorry Rob I don't agree with that. The financial crisis got dramatically worse when the American government allowed Lehman Bros. to go to the wall. Allowing Northern Rock to go tits up would have put even greater pressure on the UK economy and would certainly have meant that the cost of bailing out the other miscreants would have increased exponentially, perhaps to the point that it became unviable. This would have then led to the UK going cap in hand to the IMF and conceivably to global economic meltdown. Don't forget it was a very close-run thing and the odd percentage point here or there could have tipped the whole thing over the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a person of Scottish descent I can offer a unique opinion. Quite inconvenient the truth about the whole Union of 1707 it is - it really was not the Anglish that wanted the whole deal - but rather the Scots. There was a little trifle in Scots economics called the "Darien Scheme" which was a colonial project in what is now Panama in Central America. It was Scotland's attempt at a colony that failed miserably and practically bankrupted the whole country. So Scots politicians brought up the whole Act of Union idea with the English parliament - seeking in return for their political acquiescence to a United Kingdom a practical financial bailout in the form of the "Equivalent Fund" which was paid out by England to Scotland into the 1720s.

Fast forward three centuries - the whole Royal Bank of Scotland bailout by the British Treasury. Hmmm.

Autonomy - certainly. A clean break, might wanna think about that, could have some narsty consequences.

I believe the whole bailout started at Northern Rock (an English Bank who incurred Bad debts from the USA i believe, oh those colonies) Of course RBS were in the firing line. But it was far from THE only bank to be bailed out

Lloyds TSB was the other main recipient, probably even more so than the RBS. However that was caused by its disastrous rescue - at the Government's behest - of the doomed HBOS, of which The Bank of Scotland was the largest constituent.

Having said that, I think it's unfair to blame Scotland for the failures of its bankers, as the City didn't come out of it too well either, nurturing institutions who all colluded in the creation of financial 'instruments' that were basically a double indemnity gamble to ensure that if the dodgy credit and shaky mortgages they were all underwriting came home to roost, they would still come up smiling and smelling of roses.

I wouldn't want to see Britain lose Scotland from the Union. If that happened, only little Wales would be a bastion against the selfish, self-interested Toryism of the English Southeast, and they would probably react by going all Plaid Cymru, and seeking the same kind of independence as Scotland (though in the Welsh case it would be a total disaster for them). One fascinating alternative would be to see Wales become what it was in the early days of the Saxon kingdoms, where Wales took in Cornwall, the entire English NorthWest, and even a bit of Scotland.

How about this for a new division :

Scotland

Wales + Cornwall + the NorthWest of England (the Celtic fringe)

Yorkshire + the NorthEast (the Danelaw)

the rest of England

and Northern Ireland would be forced to make up its own mind - united Ireland, or part of England?

Edited by Peckris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think we English should hold a referendum to decide whether we want Scotland to be a member of our Kingdom. If the answer's No, we'll give them a month's notice to quit. :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-39-osborne-rule-currency-union-independent-scotland-074618069--sector.html

Canna have your cake an' eat it twa it seems.

In the unlikely event that Scotland did opt for independence I could see some two decades down the road serious regrets ala the split up of Czechoslovakia. Now Czechs and Slovaks are pondering why the world they needed to split a country that was getting along just fine - no real ethnic tensions etc like Jugoslavia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-39-osborne-rule-currency-union-independent-scotland-074618069--sector.html

Canna have your cake an' eat it twa it seems.

In the unlikely event that Scotland did opt for independence I could see some two decades down the road serious regrets ala the split up of Czechoslovakia. Now Czechs and Slovaks are pondering why the world they needed to split a country that was getting along just fine - no real ethnic tensions etc like Jugoslavia.

From one of the comments : "Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom as long as Stewart [sic] Blood sits upon the throne of the United Kingdom. We made that deal centuries ago because of that blood, and Scotland today is far better off because of it."

Stewart! That would be Andy then, would it? :D Assuming the commenter means 'Stuart', then my response would be, what Stuart blood? It's been resolutely Hanoverian since George I. If there really was any Stuart blood on the throne (apart from a few unlaundered dried smears from Charlie's neck) then what were the Jacobite rebellions all about, the 'Prince across the water', an' a'that?

Edited by Peckris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Northern Rock should have been allowed to go to the wall. For people to cry that their life savings were in danger should be a salutory lesson in the art of not putting all eggs in one basket. For those who put more than the compensation limit on deposit - you took a gamble and by rights should have lost.

I'm sorry Rob I don't agree with that. The financial crisis got dramatically worse when the American government allowed Lehman Bros. to go to the wall. Allowing Northern Rock to go tits up would have put even greater pressure on the UK economy and would certainly have meant that the cost of bailing out the other miscreants would have increased exponentially, perhaps to the point that it became unviable. This would have then led to the UK going cap in hand to the IMF and conceivably to global economic meltdown. Don't forget it was a very close-run thing and the odd percentage point here or there could have tipped the whole thing over the edge.

Somewhere along the line it is necessary for sufficient numbers of people to get hurt in order for the sytemic failures to be drummed home. Whether it was Northern Rock or some other institution is not material

I feel we live in a society where nobody takes responsibility for their own actions. In the case of the banks it should also include borrowers who for some reason seem to think that the same economic conditions will prevail for the length of their mortgage. Why should they when economies have always been cyclical? Why were banks offering loans of over 100%, and why were people taking them out. If you don't have to put your own equity into a purchase, it isn't yours, you don't have a stake, so may not care? Would anyone here lend their own money on that basis? I think not. Couple that with the ridiculous arrangement we have now where you can bankrupt yourself and be completely rehabilitated after 12 months is crass and a recipe for default. Moral compasses need to be aligned on all fronts. If you can't afford it with some level of safety margin, don't borrow.

People feel the need to get a new car (see where all the PPI payouts have been spent), why? I was 33 before I bought my first new car - but not before I had paid off my mortgage which I always viewed as a 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over me. Prior to that I lived on cheap second-hand vehicles. A car is a depreciating liability, not a status symbol.

Edited by Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was very important that it wasn't Northern Rock. If the government had allowed the plug to be pulled on the first bank to hit choppy waters, then there would have been a run on every bank - result, financial chaos. I do agree that the banks were being vastly imprudent but in letting them fail ad hoc, the government would have been doing way, way more than giving a rap across the knuckles to those who had taken advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, as is always the case, those that suffered most would have been those who were least to blame for the carnage, and least able to ride out the storm.

I think we can agree though that people do need to learn to live within their means and insisting that the banks are not complicit in individuals' imprudence will go some way to curbing their worst excesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was very important that it wasn't Northern Rock. If the government had allowed the plug to be pulled on the first bank to hit choppy waters, then there would have been a run on every bank - result, financial chaos. I do agree that the banks were being vastly imprudent but in letting them fail ad hoc, the government would have been doing way, way more than giving a rap across the knuckles to those who had taken advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, as is always the case, those that suffered most would have been those who were least to blame for the carnage, and least able to ride out the storm.

I think we can agree though that people do need to learn to live within their means and insisting that the banks are not complicit in individuals' imprudence will go some way to curbing their worst excesses.

I agree. The Labour Government may have 'caused' the deficit by spending billions to bail out the banks, but the alternative would have been total economic collapse, worse even than Greece. Unfortunately I've read that the banks are back to some of their worst excesses, and haven't learned a thing it seems except how to make irresponsible profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, i have to say, its England who don't want Scotland to leave, not the other way around and there is obvious reasons to that. We pay more in tax to Westminster than we receive back pro head of population yet we can afford to have free Health prescriptions and University fees (for those living and being Scottish) Weatminster and all those who reside there are just a bunch of leeches and parasites sucking the life out of the people they Govern dipping their hands in the sweetie jar.

Just a few days back i was reading that a Tory Party donor received a Billion pound NHS contract, strange that eh. As i said, just a load of parasites who are in it to make themselves richer and the poorer even moreso

Dave,

I agree that England doesn't want to Scotland to go, but I'm not at all sure that view is based on economics, more a genuine affection for Scotland. You say that you pay more taxes but that isn't accepted by the IFS which in 2012 concluded that Scotland receives about £200 more per head of population than the people in England do. To quote from their report, which I would trust far more than anything a politician says:

'Whilst uncertainty over how to allocate spending in some areas like defence might change the magnitude of the difference, it is not big enough to affect the broad conclusion that spending per head is substantially higher in Scotland.'

If you then add in the SNPs uncosted social spending promises, plus the costs of achieving independence and I'm not convinced of the financial argument.

I think you're listening to Tory Waffle Dave. Have a read

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/breaking-news-9-3-is-a-smaller-number-than-9-9-indyref/

You may also try this for a read

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/new-report-scots-paying-more-tax-than-rest-of-uk.20777183

Not Tory waffle, nor SNP drivel either - just plain old factual stuff from the Institute of Fiscal Studies. I'll take their opinion over politicians any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was very important that it wasn't Northern Rock. If the government had allowed the plug to be pulled on the first bank to hit choppy waters, then there would have been a run on every bank - result, financial chaos. I do agree that the banks were being vastly imprudent but in letting them fail ad hoc, the government would have been doing way, way more than giving a rap across the knuckles to those who had taken advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, as is always the case, those that suffered most would have been those who were least to blame for the carnage, and least able to ride out the storm.

I think we can agree though that people do need to learn to live within their means and insisting that the banks are not complicit in individuals' imprudence will go some way to curbing their worst excesses.

I agree. The Labour Government may have 'caused' the deficit by spending billions to bail out the banks, but the alternative would have been total economic collapse, worse even than Greece. Unfortunately I've read that the banks are back to some of their worst excesses, and haven't learned a thing it seems except how to make irresponsible profits.

One thing that's certain is that only a small minority of people have the ability to remember more than a week or two ago. Sure the last government borrowed lots of money to bail out the banks, but that was because they had already p'd up any reserves against the wall buying votes with uncosted and unsustainable benefits.

Banks making excessive profits now? Maybe, but that is a politicised statement. Payday loans are slated for their high rates of interest, but the admin costs of a £5 loan are no different to a £500 loan. Borrow £5 for a few days and it is little wonder that the APR is so large. Collecting the money is expensive too, but has to be done if the case is to be made for a business model. The economy is stumbling along on the back of consumer spending funded by borrowing now that banks aren't so restrictive in their lending. Why are people borrowing at the first opportunity when interest rates increases are a one way bet?

Making a profit is not irresponsible. Shops that make a profit due to bumper sales are not considered irresponsible. Apple makes huge profits because it sells something the public wants. So do banks. They pander to the instant gratification mob, such as many purchasers of 'must have items'.

Ed Balls is still shadow Chancellor, despite having been GB's right hand man for a significant period of the economic irresponsibility pursued by the last government and in which he presumably had a say. Milliband can't remember that far back, so carries on, regarding him as the right tool for the job. Right tool? Yes, yes or no depending on how you read it. Don't forget that as Chancellor, he would be responsible for wasting far more money than anyone else, whilst at the same time increasing the indebtedness of all the taxpayers in this country. Virtually no politician thinks beyond how to get elected next time round. Osborne, Balls, Cameron, Milliband, the names are irrelevant. Solve that one and the country might be in a better position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was very important that it wasn't Northern Rock. If the government had allowed the plug to be pulled on the first bank to hit choppy waters, then there would have been a run on every bank - result, financial chaos. I do agree that the banks were being vastly imprudent but in letting them fail ad hoc, the government would have been doing way, way more than giving a rap across the knuckles to those who had taken advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, as is always the case, those that suffered most would have been those who were least to blame for the carnage, and least able to ride out the storm.

I think we can agree though that people do need to learn to live within their means and insisting that the banks are not complicit in individuals' imprudence will go some way to curbing their worst excesses.

I agree. The Labour Government may have 'caused' the deficit by spending billions to bail out the banks, but the alternative would have been total economic collapse, worse even than Greece. Unfortunately I've read that the banks are back to some of their worst excesses, and haven't learned a thing it seems except how to make irresponsible profits.

I've run my own businesses all my working life and never received a penny from government when times are hard, nor have I ever expected it. In years gone by I've had to raid my personal savings to pay staff (I never let them know) and juggle things so as never to let a single supplier down. Whilst understanding the necessity of saving the banks and preventing financial melt-down, what sticks in my craw is the sense of entitlement that bankers still seem to have, despite our saving their collective arses. I have first hand experience of an RBS director, from the days of failure, still living the high life when, in any other business situation, he'd be struggling to explain to potential employers why he deserves a job counting paperclips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No benefits here either.

Mrs Peter went for JSA a while back but we have too much money apparently.

So all the taxes I pay just go to the lowlife.

She is happily working from home again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In these days bankers go on in their perfidious pursuits. In days of old they were in the very least run out of town, but much more likely were gaoled or even worse. I do believe that a few exceptional cases shall have earned the latter sentence - as an example. AIG, RBS, HBOS, Lehman Brothers - doesn't matter the ilk - but a wee bit of drawn blood might satiate the need for consequence.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. T. Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was very important that it wasn't Northern Rock. If the government had allowed the plug to be pulled on the first bank to hit choppy waters, then there would have been a run on every bank - result, financial chaos. I do agree that the banks were being vastly imprudent but in letting them fail ad hoc, the government would have been doing way, way more than giving a rap across the knuckles to those who had taken advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, as is always the case, those that suffered most would have been those who were least to blame for the carnage, and least able to ride out the storm.

I think we can agree though that people do need to learn to live within their means and insisting that the banks are not complicit in individuals' imprudence will go some way to curbing their worst excesses.

I agree. The Labour Government may have 'caused' the deficit by spending billions to bail out the banks, but the alternative would have been total economic collapse, worse even than Greece. Unfortunately I've read that the banks are back to some of their worst excesses, and haven't learned a thing it seems except how to make irresponsible profits.

I've run my own businesses all my working life and never received a penny from government when times are hard, nor have I ever expected it. In years gone by I've had to raid my personal savings to pay staff (I never let them know) and juggle things so as never to let a single supplier down. Whilst understanding the necessity of saving the banks and preventing financial melt-down, what sticks in my craw is the sense of entitlement that bankers still seem to have, despite our saving their collective arses. I have first hand experience of an RBS director, from the days of failure, still living the high life when, in any other business situation, he'd be struggling to explain to potential employers why he deserves a job counting paperclips.

In these days bankers go on in their perfidious pursuits. In days of old they were in the very least run out of town, but much more likely were gaoled or even worse. I do believe that a few exceptional cases shall have earned the latter sentence - as an example. AIG, RBS, HBOS, Lehman Brothers - doesn't matter the ilk - but a wee bit of drawn blood might satiate the need for consequence.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. T. Jefferson

Hear hear.

No benefits here either.

Mrs Peter went for JSA a while back but we have too much money apparently.

So all the taxes I pay just go to the lowlife.

She is happily working from home again.

Speaking as a disabled lowlife, I can at least claim to have paid National Insurance for over 25 years, so I feel that the benefits that enable me to have some kind of a life, I helped pay for. As with any insurance policy.

Edited by Peckris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scotland's two great exports tramps and whisky- usually these are found together

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×