Boris big win.

[Landloper]

The point still stands, Marco. Even if the union were more benign, it would still be a bar to Scotland's independence and would still have to go in order for her to achieve full nationhood. Even if every Scottish voter adored the union, it would still mean that Scotland had exchanged some of her self-governing rights in return for membership of the union.

Until 1603 England and Scotland were separate nations, each with their own system of government. On the death of Elizabeth I, childless, the crown passed to James VI, of Scotland because he was the great great grandson of Henry the VIIth. It was James the VI of Scotland who decided not to be a monarch of two kingdoms, but rather to combine the two kingdoms into one, and so proclaimed the union of Scotland and England. In 1604 James first styled himself King of Great Britain. He wans't entirely successful, and the crowns remained separate, though now with shared symbols and and one monarch. But the drive towards the union had been begun by Scotland's attempt known as the 'Union o the crouns'.

The history of relations between England and Scotland is complcated and often bloody, but i mention the above to point out that Scotalnd is far from a passive actor on the historical stage. Indeed without Scotland's active participation in what became Great Britain the history of the British Empire would have had taken a different course. I'm not sure the phrase English ruling class has much meaning, at least when used after 1603. The ruling class has been comprised of the a small strata of the English, the Scottish, and the Welsh peoples for a long time, and is perhaps better described as the British ruling class. I suggest that Scotland played a pivotal riole in furthering the idea of a union which allowed the concentration of class power over the various peoples of the British isles.



The sooner both England and Scotland return to being independent self-governing democratic states the better.

[Marco]

We'll agree to disagree on some of your other points, John, save the historical facts. However, on this we are in FULL agreement:

The sooner both England and Scotland return to being independent self-governing democratic states the better.

...and they shouldn't have been 'united' in the first place, as Scotland has never been treated, fairly and squarely, as England's equal. Instead, it's forever been ruled by Westminster and a politically London-centric bias,- and which has always irked the majority of the Scots (Welsh and Irish), whether they care to admit it or not.

Equality , as part of the union, is what Scotland and its people have always wanted. Now, they can go one better, and be independent and in control of their own destiny - and we can all get on with looking after our own best interests and those of the country we live in, rather than kidding ourselves on that Westminster is ultimately looking after the best interests of anyone in the UK but England.

Marco [considers himself as Scottish, first and foremost, before British, and so will always have a pro-Scotland mentality].

[Landloper]

We'll agree to disagree on some of your other points, John, save the historical facts. However, on this we are in FULL agreement:



...and they shouldn't have been 'united' in the first place, as Scotland has never been treated, fairly and squarely, as England's equal. Instead, it's forever been ruled by Westminster and a politically London-centric bias,- and which has always irked the majority of the Scots (Welsh and Irish), whether they care to admit it or not.

Equality , as part of the union, is what Scotland and its people have always wanted. Now, they can go one better, and be independent and in control of their own destiny - and we can all get on with looking after our own best interests and those of the country we live in, rather than kidding ourselves on that Westminster is ultimately looking after the best interests of anyone in the UK but England.

Marco [considers himself as Scottish, first and foremost, before British, and so will always have a pro-Scotland mentality].

Here's another one I think we may angree on: Neither of us wants to be ruled from Westmonster. I'd add that

I don't want to be ruled by anyone, from anywhere.

I want a direct democracy instead, where each citizen has the right to take part in and vote on what is only now decided on by politicians. In other words devolution to citizen level.

As to the original union of Scotland and England, no political union is ever between equal partners for each participant hopes for an advantage over the other, or at least to be primus inter pares.

I do hope that B.Johnson will think again and do the decent thing, because as N.Sturgeon said this morning, the issue is not going to go away just because he refuses another referedum. I would urge a bold stroke on her part, namely calling Westmonster's bluff by holding a referendum and acting on the result without reference to Westmonster.

I belive the union has run its course.