If we don’t like “federal” or “feudal” or “dictatorship” or even “Democracy” - then isn’t it time to come up with something completely new?
…Or just make something out of the best bits of the government types that went before?
Winseer:
If we don’t like “federal” or “feudal” or “dictatorship” or even “Democracy” - then isn’t it time to come up with something completely new?…Or just make something out of the best bits of the government types that went before?
Local democracy is the type of system which I’m referring to.In which case even the English federation which Athelstan created goes against that idea let alone the Norman-Hanovarian federalisation of Britain.In this case it should firstly be a case of dissolving the Union and returning Britain back to its seperate nations.Then let them all decide what type of government they want after that.
In our case I’d like to see England become a confederation made up of it’s historic regional and county governments.In which the decisions at most local level take precedence over the higher levels.IE power of VETO or opt out for local government over national.
As opposed to the top down system which we’ve got now in which MP’s from other areas and even foreign states in the case of ‘the Union’ make decisions which concern others who therefore have no electoral control over that decision making process.
I hope the Scots do vote yes. My reasons of course are purely selfish! As an armchair anarchist the very fact that the Govt don’t want it makes me want it!
The main reason I want them to gain independence however is that I see this as the one and only realistic opportunity that the English will receive to get out of the EU. There’ll be a lot of learned legal bods arguing this for a while, but the simple truth will be if the Scots gain independence then the UK that originally joined the EEC will no longer exist, ergo the remainder of the UK will have to reballot/renegotiate their EU membership.
I honestly believe that conversely the Scots are the English best hope. For that reason alone I wish them well.
Btw, before anybody says all this will cause chaos and crisis, I say that we (the English) have faced and overcome many worse crisis that may perhaps befall us here. As for the Scots? Well it won’t be my problem will it? 
Carryfast:
Diesel Weasel:
It’s sad, very sad. Whatever the outcome the two opposing camps in the vote will have to continue living next door to each other ( quite literally ) for a long time. The reinforcement of the old fracture lines of Scottish society ( Highland vs Lowland, Protestant vs Catholic ) do not fill me with great optimism regarding the nation’s future in any result.The U.K.'s political system is long overdue a large kick up the backside but I do not believe that Scottish independence is the answer. It is vital that any nation founded on Common Law and Habeus Corpus ( like the nations of the UK, USA, Australia etc ) needs two layers of government. An upper and a lower house to provide the necessary checks and balances on the arbitrary abuses of power. An example of the contrary would be the ■■■■’s legitimate election to power in Germany. With no upper house the Nazis simply voted to end democracy. A similar practice goes on today in the Middle East where certain countries will have one election once and then dissolve any opposition.
I suggest that the idea of a National Assembly should be extended to England. With each home nation then having its own legislature to deal with tax, fiscal matters, benefits, health and education etc. the House of Commons could be done away with. The House of Lords, now reduced to a talking shop of ex-party cronies and placemen, could be replaced with a new UK-wide elected Senate to deal with monetary policies, defence and foreign relations. This need not meet exclusively in London but could easily be carried out in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast as the need arose.
Such an arrangement would satisfy the absolute need for a two tier “checks and balances” government while satisfying the national aspirations of the member home nations.
How do you reach the conclusion that a civilised form of government is mutually exclusive to Scottish ( and English ) independence.Being that the German ■■■■ Party was born out of an environment of the unification of Germany as a country just like the UK.The fact is history shows that is more likely,for federations of whatever type to turn into dictatorial monsters,than for seperate nation states.
IE Norman,Plantagenet and Hanovarian Britain was not much different to ■■■■ Germany in that regard in it’s relationship to its conquered Celtic neighbours.Which is the reality of what the Union is founded on.
Interesting but unrelated comments. The ■■■■ party was fertilised by the spiteful conditions of the Versailles Treaty imposed by the French Government in an attempt to neutralise any future German military hegemony. Tragically it more or less guaranteed that which it sought to eradicate.
My argument for home nation assemblies with an elected “Senate of the Isles” is intended to satisfy separate national aspirations whilst maintaining a UK. If you’re not interested in maintaining a polity such as the UK then feel free to dismiss it but at least admit it.
As a product of Scots, Welsh and Irish immigration to the industrial North West of England I consider myself to be about as British as you can get and don’t really buy into the “whinging Celt” narrative ( although many do ) . If we follow that line of grievance we should have subpoenaed the Mayor of Rome long ago for historical crimes against humanity in letting the lands of the Iceni ( North Norfolk ) become a slave province.
I consider the UK to be the best thing since sliced bread. 10 out 10 Calais asylum seekers can’t be wrong.
could not really care less,i doubt it will have any impact on my life in general
Diesel Weasel:
Carryfast:
Diesel Weasel:
It’s sad, very sad. Whatever the outcome the two opposing camps in the vote will have to continue living next door to each other ( quite literally ) for a long time. The reinforcement of the old fracture lines of Scottish society ( Highland vs Lowland, Protestant vs Catholic ) do not fill me with great optimism regarding the nation’s future in any result.The U.K.'s political system is long overdue a large kick up the backside but I do not believe that Scottish independence is the answer. It is vital that any nation founded on Common Law and Habeus Corpus ( like the nations of the UK, USA, Australia etc ) needs two layers of government. An upper and a lower house to provide the necessary checks and balances on the arbitrary abuses of power. An example of the contrary would be the ■■■■’s legitimate election to power in Germany. With no upper house the Nazis simply voted to end democracy. A similar practice goes on today in the Middle East where certain countries will have one election once and then dissolve any opposition.
I suggest that the idea of a National Assembly should be extended to England. With each home nation then having its own legislature to deal with tax, fiscal matters, benefits, health and education etc. the House of Commons could be done away with. The House of Lords, now reduced to a talking shop of ex-party cronies and placemen, could be replaced with a new UK-wide elected Senate to deal with monetary policies, defence and foreign relations. This need not meet exclusively in London but could easily be carried out in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast as the need arose.
Such an arrangement would satisfy the absolute need for a two tier “checks and balances” government while satisfying the national aspirations of the member home nations.
How do you reach the conclusion that a civilised form of government is mutually exclusive to Scottish ( and English ) independence.Being that the German ■■■■ Party was born out of an environment of the unification of Germany as a country just like the UK.The fact is history shows that is more likely,for federations of whatever type to turn into dictatorial monsters,than for seperate nation states.
IE Norman,Plantagenet and Hanovarian Britain was not much different to ■■■■ Germany in that regard in it’s relationship to its conquered Celtic neighbours.Which is the reality of what the Union is founded on.
Interesting but unrelated comments. The ■■■■ party was fertilised by the spiteful conditions of the Versailles Treaty imposed by the French Government in an attempt to neutralise any future German military hegemony. Tragically it more or less guaranteed that which it sought to eradicate.
My argument for home nation assemblies with an elected “Senate of the Isles” is intended to satisfy separate national aspirations whilst maintaining a UK. If you’re not interested in maintaining a polity such as the UK then feel free to dismiss it but at least admit it.
As a product of Scots, Welsh and Irish immigration to the industrial North West of England I consider myself to be about as British as you can get and don’t really buy into the “whinging Celt” narrative ( although many do ) . If we follow that line of grievance we should have subpoenaed the Mayor of Rome long ago for historical crimes against humanity in letting the lands of the Iceni ( North Norfolk ) become a slave province.
I consider the UK to be the best thing since sliced bread. 10 out 10 Calais asylum seekers can’t be wrong.
Firstly there is no such thing as ‘British’ because the UK is just an artificial creation of those historic regimes which I’ve described,founded on force and brutality.I’m also part Irish mostly English certainly not British together with split loyalties to both of those seperate nations in line with the proportions I’ve got by descent.
As it stands the UK is just a compromised regime founded on historic wrongs and which as I’ve said just makes the idea of ‘democracy’ a travesty in which Scottish ( and some Irish ) MP’s make English policy and vice versa.
Yes all that might seem good to the average ‘asylum seeker’ but try re imposing the pre 1921 Irish Free State and Republic system by taking it back into the UK and see if you get the same welcome for it. 
As for the Romans there is a point where the issues have to be consigned to history and that is one of them.Unlike the theft of the British Isles seperate nation state identities by the Norman/Plantagenet invaders and the Hanovarian regime which followed it.So now,like the Irish,hopefully the Scots will do their bit in trying to put right that historic wrong.But if only the English could also get their heads around the idea that Britain is a place made up of different nations not a one size fits all fiefdom set up to suit a few French invaders and a German based Royal family.
Unfortunately the SNP are mobilising the knuckle draggers and numpties,wrapping them in the St Andrews cross,and turning them loose on the scheme’s (housing estates) of the central belt to roar FREEEDOM at any clown who’ll listen 
Carryfast writes…
“As for the Romans there is a point where the issues have to be consigned to history and that is one of them.Unlike the theft of the British Isles seperate nation state identities by the Norman/Plantagenet invaders and the Hanovarian regime which followed it.So now,like the Irish,hopefully the Scots will do their bit in trying to put right that historic wrong.But if only the English could also get their heads around the idea that Britain is a place made up of different nations not a one size fits all fiefdom set up to suit a few French invaders and a German based Royal family.”
The U.K. that we have now was freely ( though somewhat reluctantly ) entered into by Scotland after the abysmal failure of the Darien Project in the 1690s which left the nation virtually bankrupt. The Act of Union opened English trade routes and opportunities to Scotland which had hitherto been jealously guarded by the English and totally off limits. The rest, as they say, is history. The solvency and increased wealth enjoyed by the Scottish nation as a whole helped to nurture the Scottish intellectual colossi of the 18th century enlightenment such as Adam Smith. It is very doubtful that an “Independent”, bankrupt Scotland would have flowered as it did.
Of course we could, in England, take the opportunity of a Yes vote to revert to pre-Athelstanain modes of government and administration. This would involve the construction of Moot Houses, the unchecked arbitrary power of the Earldormen and the reintroduction of serfdom. I think we could all agree that this would be a bloody stupid idea.
Will they have to be captured and sent back 
Will they use jocks,traps.
Ba dum tish.
Diesel Weasel:
Carryfast writes…“As for the Romans there is a point where the issues have to be consigned to history and that is one of them.Unlike the theft of the British Isles seperate nation state identities by the Norman/Plantagenet invaders and the Hanovarian regime which followed it.So now,like the Irish,hopefully the Scots will do their bit in trying to put right that historic wrong.But if only the English could also get their heads around the idea that Britain is a place made up of different nations not a one size fits all fiefdom set up to suit a few French invaders and a German based Royal family.”
The U.K. that we have now was freely ( though somewhat reluctantly ) entered into by Scotland after the abysmal failure of the Darien Project in the 1690s which left the nation virtually bankrupt. The Act of Union opened English trade routes and opportunities to Scotland which had hitherto been jealously guarded by the English and totally off limits. The rest, as they say, is history. The solvency and increased wealth enjoyed by the Scottish nation as a whole helped to nurture the Scottish intellectual colossi of the 18th century enlightenment such as Adam Smith. It is very doubtful that an “Independent”, bankrupt Scotland would have flowered as it did.
Of course we could, in England, take the opportunity of a Yes vote to revert to pre-Athelstanain modes of government and administration. This would involve the construction of Moot Houses, the unchecked arbitrary power of the Earldormen and the reintroduction of serfdom. I think we could all agree that this would be a bloody stupid idea.
‘Somewhat reluctantly’ there seems to be an understatement which obviously left out inconvenient small issues like Culloden and what took place during the aftermath of that.
As for English government I’d guess that things would have moved on in that regard assuming we’d won in 1066 and assuming that Harold’s successors could have been convinced of the benefits of keeping government local to the electorate.As opposed to the,at worst,brutal dictatorship and,at best, undemocratic federalisation that we ended up with in the case of the UK.
I’ll think you’ll find that Culloden was less about nationalism (Scots v English) and more a British religious civil war battle. That is the British protestant king with his English and Scottish troops against the Catholic rival, Bonnie prince Charlie, and his,mainly, highland Scots. Slyly backed by France and it’s money of course. In fact there were Scottish, English, Irish, French and Germans on both sides.
Charlie didn’t want to seperate Scotland from the Union, he wanted to rule the whole lot. In fact Culloden was his last throw of the dice after retreating from Derby after his abortive invasion of England.
As so often happens, the cause of thousands dying is kings and religion. To represent it as a Scottish bid for freedom is misleading.
Spardo:
I’ll think you’ll find that Culloden was less about nationalism (Scots v English) and more a British religious civil war battle. That is the British protestant king with his English and Scottish troops against the Catholic rival, Bonnie prince Charlie, and his,mainly, highland Scots. Slyly backed by France and it’s money of course. In fact there were Scottish, English, Irish, French and Germans on both sides.Charlie didn’t want to seperate Scotland from the Union, he wanted to rule the whole lot. In fact Culloden was his last throw of the dice after retreating from Derby after his abortive invasion of England.
As so often happens, the cause of thousands dying is kings and religion. To represent it as a Scottish bid for freedom is misleading.
While the idea of the Scots fighting over control of the English throne seems stupid in terms of the nationalist cause which most Scots were probably really fighting for.It would though be fair to say that battle was the ‘result’ of the Scots being fooled into thinking that the ‘union’ was anything more than English rule over them with the so called ‘Scottish’ Royal Family then trying to take advantage of that.Which was then confirmed by the aftermath in which, contrary to what was needed,in seperating the two nations at that point,the English predictably decided to consolidate the ‘union’ by way of brutal ethnic cleansing of those who were considered as opposing that union,instead.
Carryfast writes…again.
“While the idea of the Scots fighting over control of the English throne seems stupid in terms of the nationalist cause which most Scots were probably really fighting for.It would though be fair to say that battle was the ‘result’ of the Scots being fooled into thinking that the ‘union’ was anything more than English rule over them with the so called ‘Scottish’ Royal Family then trying to take advantage of that.Which was then confirmed by the aftermath in which, contrary to what was needed,in seperating the two nations at that point,the English predictably decided to consolidate the ‘union’ by way of brutal ethnic cleansing of those who were considered as opposing that union,instead.”
The Highland Clearances after Culloden was genocide. Absolutely no argument there. Carried out, in the main, by enthusiastic Lowland Scots on the make. But the choice between the House of Stuart model of absolute monarchy and the House of Hanover “dictatorship” could not have been more stark. On the one hand, a monarchy that was a fully paid up member of the Catholic “Divine Right of Kings” school of autocracy or the nascent parliamentary democracy whose birth certificate was signed in 1699 during the so called “Glorious Revolution”. I write this as a practicing Catholic so no anti religious slur is intended. The Catholic Church got out of the territory game a while ago, thank God.
Charles Edward Stuart’s last hurrah of the clan system, a system of kinship, patronage and unthinking loyalty, was doomed to failure. Mercantile capitalism had taken root in Britain and the emerging middle class weren’t about to give it up. Charles Stuart’s Chief of Staff, the brilliant general Lord George Murray knew that the jig was up long before the Jacobites entered Derby on 21st December 1745. The abysmal lack of English and lowland Scottish recruits to the cause was not lost on him. The 45 rising was a heroic catastrophe that long predates the Charge of the Light Brigade. It was all about different visions of Britain. So who invented Britain in the first place?..I’ll give you a clue. It wasn’t the British.
In the 4th century BC a Greek trader and adventurer based in Marseilles by the name of Pytheus wrote a great best seller of the day called “On The Ocean” in which he charted his journey to the Cassiterides ( in Greek, the Tin Islands ) a far off, strange group of islands at the end of the known, civilised world. A place of tattooed, illiterate tribes. Friendly enough if you wanted to trade with them but woefully backward and primitive. He called these people the BretannikÄ“ ( in Greek, The Painted Ones. The Picts may have been the last example known to us )
Three centuries later another adventurer one J. Caesar ( this time with an expeditionary army ) landed on those same islands which had now acquired the Romanised name of Britannica. He found the same tattooed, illiterate tribesman much given to horrific human sacrifice and barbarous beliefs. After a few military hiccups the Emperor Claudius finished the conquest of what we now call England and Wales. The “Pax Romana” had arrived although it never happened North of the Tweed or across the Irish Sea. It happened later there by proxy.
The Romans were, at heart, extreme venture capitalists with a ruthless military. However, in their wake came literacy, numeracy, science and technology. If you wanted to get on in this new society it paid you to study. After the withdrawal of the legions back to Rome in the 4th century the by now educated Britons faced a slow, creeping advance of Germanic Anglo Saxon barbarism. In the face of this advance a rump of the original, by now literate, inhabitants sought refuge in the margins of Wales, Cornwall and Strathclyde.
But guess what? Rome wasn’t finished. St Patrick ( a Romano Briton from Kilmarnock ) had spread literacy and learning to Ireland where it flourished and thrived well away from the Anglo Saxon land grab. And then, when it seemed that learning was about to be wiped out back on the mainland Pope Gregory sent a grumbling St Augustus to convert the Saxon King of Kent. Bingo! Literacy and learning was back on the map. It spread like wildfire.
The Viking attempt to impose barbarism was stemmed by King Alfred, himself educated in Rome and the first King of The English who could read. He also wrote many books on law, administration and philosophy.
So, what have the Romans ever done for us? I’ll tell you. They invented Britain. If you don’t like the idea of Britain I suggest that you consider the many global alternatives available.
History lesson over. Let’s do lunch.
PS. And Carryfast? I can’t be bothered to reply to anything else you post. Aren’t you just a bit relieved?
Diesel Weasel:
Carryfast:
Diesel Weasel:
It’s sad, very sad. Whatever the outcome the two opposing camps in the vote will have to continue living next door to each other ( quite literally ) for a long time. The reinforcement of the old fracture lines of Scottish society ( Highland vs Lowland, Protestant vs Catholic ) do not fill me with great optimism regarding the nation’s future in any result.The U.K.'s political system is long overdue a large kick up the backside but I do not believe that Scottish independence is the answer. It is vital that any nation founded on Common Law and Habeus Corpus ( like the nations of the UK, USA, Australia etc ) needs two layers of government. An upper and a lower house to provide the necessary checks and balances on the arbitrary abuses of power. An example of the contrary would be the ■■■■’s legitimate election to power in Germany. With no upper house the Nazis simply voted to end democracy. A similar practice goes on today in the Middle East where certain countries will have one election once and then dissolve any opposition.
I suggest that the idea of a National Assembly should be extended to England. With each home nation then having its own legislature to deal with tax, fiscal matters, benefits, health and education etc. the House of Commons could be done away with. The House of Lords, now reduced to a talking shop of ex-party cronies and placemen, could be replaced with a new UK-wide elected Senate to deal with monetary policies, defence and foreign relations. This need not meet exclusively in London but could easily be carried out in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast as the need arose.
Such an arrangement would satisfy the absolute need for a two tier “checks and balances” government while satisfying the national aspirations of the member home nations.
How do you reach the conclusion that a civilised form of government is mutually exclusive to Scottish ( and English ) independence.Being that the German ■■■■ Party was born out of an environment of the unification of Germany as a country just like the UK.The fact is history shows that is more likely,for federations of whatever type to turn into dictatorial monsters,than for seperate nation states.
IE Norman,Plantagenet and Hanovarian Britain was not much different to ■■■■ Germany in that regard in it’s relationship to its conquered Celtic neighbours.Which is the reality of what the Union is founded on.
Interesting but unrelated comments. The ■■■■ party was fertilised by the spiteful conditions of the Versailles Treaty imposed by the French Government in an attempt to neutralise any future German military hegemony. Tragically it more or less guaranteed that which it sought to eradicate.
My argument for home nation assemblies with an elected “Senate of the Isles” is intended to satisfy separate national aspirations whilst maintaining a UK. If you’re not interested in maintaining a polity such as the UK then feel free to dismiss it but at least admit it.
As a product of Scots, Welsh and Irish immigration to the industrial North West of England I consider myself to be about as British as you can get and don’t really buy into the “whinging Celt” narrative ( although many do ) . If we follow that line of grievance we should have subpoenaed the Mayor of Rome long ago for historical crimes against humanity in letting the lands of the Iceni ( North Norfolk ) become a slave province.
I consider the UK to be the best thing since sliced bread. 10 out 10 Calais asylum seekers can’t be wrong.
Here’s some more wingeing Celt narrative - although I never quite understood why an Iceni would talk like a Scot?!
I was thinking more along the lines of “Boo-i-ful” rather than btch hure for instance… 
Which ever way they vote will be the wrong vote
If it’s more than two thirds either way, I’d say that’s the “right vote”.
51/49 is terror itself.
That’s how civil wars start. 
Winseer:
If it’s more than two thirds either way, I’d say that’s the “right vote”.51/49 is terror itself.
That’s how civil wars start.
The only way forward is full independence.
Diesel Weasel:
Carryfast writes…again.“While the idea of the Scots fighting over control of the English throne seems stupid in terms of the nationalist cause which most Scots were probably really fighting for.It would though be fair to say that battle was the ‘result’ of the Scots being fooled into thinking that the ‘union’ was anything more than English rule over them with the so called ‘Scottish’ Royal Family then trying to take advantage of that.Which was then confirmed by the aftermath in which, contrary to what was needed,in seperating the two nations at that point,the English predictably decided to consolidate the ‘union’ by way of brutal ethnic cleansing of those who were considered as opposing that union,instead.”
The Highland Clearances after Culloden was genocide. Absolutely no argument there. Carried out, in the main, by enthusiastic Lowland Scots on the make. But the choice between the House of Stuart model of absolute monarchy and the House of Hanover “dictatorship” could not have been more stark. On the one hand, a monarchy that was a fully paid up member of the Catholic “Divine Right of Kings” school of autocracy or the nascent parliamentary democracy whose birth certificate was signed in 1699 during the so called “Glorious Revolution”. I write this as a practicing Catholic so no anti religious slur is intended. The Catholic Church got out of the territory game a while ago, thank God.
Charles Edward Stuart’s last hurrah of the clan system, a system of kinship, patronage and unthinking loyalty, was doomed to failure. Mercantile capitalism had taken root in Britain and the emerging middle class weren’t about to give it up. Charles Stuart’s Chief of Staff, the brilliant general Lord George Murray knew that the jig was up long before the Jacobites entered Derby on 21st December 1745. The abysmal lack of English and lowland Scottish recruits to the cause was not lost on him. The 45 rising was a heroic catastrophe that long predates the Charge of the Light Brigade. It was all about different visions of Britain. So who invented Britain in the first place?..I’ll give you a clue. It wasn’t the British.
In the 4th century BC a Greek trader and adventurer based in Marseilles by the name of Pytheus wrote a great best seller of the day called “On The Ocean” in which he charted his journey to the Cassiterides ( in Greek, the Tin Islands ) a far off, strange group of islands at the end of the known, civilised world. A place of tattooed, illiterate tribes. Friendly enough if you wanted to trade with them but woefully backward and primitive. He called these people the BretannikÄ“ ( in Greek, The Painted Ones. The Picts may have been the last example known to us )
Three centuries later another adventurer one J. Caesar ( this time with an expeditionary army ) landed on those same islands which had now acquired the Romanised name of Britannica. He found the same tattooed, illiterate tribesman much given to horrific human sacrifice and barbarous beliefs. After a few military hiccups the Emperor Claudius finished the conquest of what we now call England and Wales. The “Pax Romana” had arrived although it never happened North of the Tweed or across the Irish Sea. It happened later there by proxy.
The Romans were, at heart, extreme venture capitalists with a ruthless military. However, in their wake came literacy, numeracy, science and technology. If you wanted to get on in this new society it paid you to study. After the withdrawal of the legions back to Rome in the 4th century the by now educated Britons faced a slow, creeping advance of Germanic Anglo Saxon barbarism. In the face of this advance a rump of the original, by now literate, inhabitants sought refuge in the margins of Wales, Cornwall and Strathclyde.
But guess what? Rome wasn’t finished. St Patrick ( a Romano Briton from Kilmarnock ) had spread literacy and learning to Ireland where it flourished and thrived well away from the Anglo Saxon land grab. And then, when it seemed that learning was about to be wiped out back on the mainland Pope Gregory sent a grumbling St Augustus to convert the Saxon King of Kent. Bingo! Literacy and learning was back on the map. It spread like wildfire.
The Viking attempt to impose barbarism was stemmed by King Alfred, himself educated in Rome and the first King of The English who could read. He also wrote many books on law, administration and philosophy.
So, what have the Romans ever done for us? I’ll tell you. They invented Britain. If you don’t like the idea of Britain I suggest that you consider the many global alternatives available.
History lesson over. Let’s do lunch.
PS. And Carryfast? I can’t be bothered to reply to anything else you post. Aren’t you just a bit relieved?
The relevant bit being what took place concerning the relationship between the seperate nations of England and Scotland and to the English nation itself long after the Roman empire had ceased to exist and after the Norman invasion.Yes the highland clearances were ethnic cleansing but the defining feature of those who carried it out was their support of the Unionist cause under Hanoverian English/British direction/leadership.
As for the ‘opposition’ the idea that it was just a ‘different vision of the same union’ in all cases on that side is arguable.Probably more likely in many cases misguided support of and involvement in a power struggle between two opposing ‘unionist’ sides,on the basis that their enemy’s enemy was their friend.
IE the Jacobite cause certainly wasn’t the Wallace one.But it is a fair bet that many of those who were mistakenly following that Jacobite cause were ‘actually’ fighting for the nationalist cause of Wallace and the Bruce not the Unionist agenda of the Stuarts.Which explains the ethnic cleansing which took place after Culloden.Which was all about getting rid of future potential Scottish nationalism not Catholicism.
As a committed Yes voter I was delighted to see the support for the Yes campaign on the terraces at Basle as England won last night PMSL
Mrmack65:
As a committed Yes voter I was delighted to see the support for the Yes campaign on the terraces at Basle as England won last night PMSL
I think you’ll find a huge proportion of the English are very much yes supporters too. 