General
19 Sep 14
21 Sep 14
Originally posted by divegeesterI appreciate knowing that. For me, it's just a no brainer independance or codependence, or however you'd describe the set up. 😕
CP you seem to be confusing the situation of the American war of independence with the Scotish situation of wanting contemporary political independence. It's worth remembering that there are 59 Scotish MPs sitting in Westminster and while they can vote on matters English, the English MPs cannot vote on matters Scotish.
BTW I love the English people, it's powers and principalities I struggle against. I think you knew that.
21 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterHe used the contraction "it's", meaning "it is", not the possessive "its".
What are you referring to as England's "powers and principalities"?
Read the post again with this new-found knowledge.
And regarding the thread title, it's always too soon for *bad* Scotland jokes.
21 Sep 14
Originally posted by coquetteHad the colonist voted for independence back in the 1700's, they most likely would have voted against it.
It's outrageous to have the nerve to vote for independence. They should have a violent bloody revolution, the old fashioned way.
The minority of the population ran the rebellion. The majority are often duped with promises of safety and protection and the ease of the status quo.
21 Sep 14
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThat's probably true. But...
Had the colonist voted for independence back in the 1700's, they most likely would have voted against it.
The minority of the population ran the rebellion. The majority are often duped with promises of safety and protection and the ease of the status quo.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." -- The Declaration of Independence, 1776
By the time King George got around to his "repeated injuries and usurpations", there was simply no other path to take against him but war, forced upon the Colonies in April of 1775. A war which we very nearly lost. Our vote for independence came at the Continental Congress in 1776. A popular vote would have taken too long, and time was of the essence, since Britain was already sending more and more troops to quell the rebellion. What moved most Colonists toward Independence was the rejection of the Olive Branch Petition (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition) of July 8, 1775, which came almost a full year before the Declaration of Independence, answered by "A Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition" (http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/procreb.html) on August 23rd. At this point it was clear that it was "Independence or Bust" for the Colonists. A poll taken then would have shown overwhelming support for Independence.
But yes, "the people" can be very slow to act. This is why we elect "representatives", to represent our interests. Too bad they often get waylaid by their dreams of avarice.
I doubt the Queen can hardly be held responsible for any "abuses and usurpations" against Scotland. The two countries have been amiable for centuries now.