Yes you're a nationalist. You could make exactly the same statement about Tooting

No voice and no power seriously? You live within a democracy and that isn't going to change. You're just swapping one arbitrary boundary for another.

How?

The infrastructure in place to get the oil to the end user is paid for by Scottish councils using Scottish money. The oil is taken from Scottish waters. A fair share would be all revenues from all Scottish oil.

Scotland isnt a country. There are no such things as "Scottish councils" or "Scottish money" or even "Scottish waters". Let alone "Scottish oil".

Doesn't matter how you label things. I'm not going to call myself what you call a "nationalist" because I don't know what exactly that means to you. I am a supporter of the policies of the Scottish National Party and full independence for Scotland.

Our voice comes from within the confines of the United Kingdom, not as a separate entity which has a separate voice. An independent Scotland would have a stronger voice on the European and world stage in key policy areas.

What all of them?



Maybe you have grander plans then we understood. No doubt the gas under Lancashire they found recently is also scottish and every other bit of wealth generated that scotland benefits from.

haha nice try.

Indeed. No idea why you want to say you're not a nationalist but lol for good measure.

Mine too. You just want to change your arbitrary boundary - we get that.

Know what the best plan would be?

The best plan would be to kick out your gov and just have Scotland (under an SNP administration) controlling the entire UK...well maybe before they made an arse of the whole thing and pissed all the money away.

The only reason I'm not going to say that is because it means something different to you than it does to Scottish Nationalism.

Oh and well done again for missing the point.

You're joking but that's a good idea.

If you have great policies and leaders the why not apply them to britain. We have no problem with Scottish politicians in charge.

Alex Salmond seems like a good chap for a politician. Shame he got so bound up in nationalism or we could have had him in charge instead of those others Scots Blair and Brown.

No it doesn't.

Under the Labour Party banner?

Hahaha I doubt it. Salmond is far too honest a man to associate himself with such a farce as the Labour Party.

British politics has had many influential Scots and most of them have been the same kind of scum who would sell their granny.

And no, I'm not joking. I do actually believe it would be the best option. Pity it is an impossible one.

My final word on this point is that it's a waste of time arguing over labels. I've made my political position clear and state which party's policies I favour.

afaik these boundaries were set on the whims of English Monarchs with their acts of Union some hundreds of years ago.

lol anyone thinking these arbitrary boundaries should not be up for renegotiation at any time.

--

Phil's weak troll is weak.

there is a country called Scotland but no country called Britain.

His weak trolls are pretty sad. Hanging around a forum with no real purpose other than to think of strange ways of trying to either piss people off or to get a reaction of sorts. Truly sad behaviour.

Says a lot for yourself, big man.

it aint your oil,its scotish

just like all the natural resources in the north of ireland belong to ireland,not the evil british

laughing at the wrong thing. No-one is saying they're not up for renegotiation but you are once again exposing your braveheart.

I know you really dont care at all about the true history but there was a single monarch before the act of union. The single monarch was established in 1603 and it was a scottish king who became king of england. None of which matters in this debate to anyone non-silly.

Ive not trolled this thread at all.

Scotland isnt a country. It has no sovereignty nor any external recognition.

And yeah, its not my oil, its our oil, it belongs to the British.

a)you should also care about minority (which in this case could be as big as say 48% of people) who are born in UK and don't want to see their citizenship taken away. Those people have basic rights while right to proclaim independent country is not in the book.
While I see it's not that simple I would say you should require at least 80% of voters to vote for independence to consider it an argument.
b)this is not how the things are done in most countries; see for example what happened last time some southern states in America tried this and they had (and still have) much more independence than Scotland has. Would you say "if they want independence, let it be so" if say the state of Alabama tried it ?

scotland is a country,and britian is evil,just like you

whats your views on northern ireland,is that a country?

Of course not, it doesnt have sovereignty or external recognition either.

There are 8 tests that all must be passed to define a country. Scotland fails two outright and 4 of the other 6 is arguably fails too.

i'm genuinely interested, what are these 8 tests that define a country?

am i on the right track with this.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverei...tion_and_types

--

Chez, it's not that i don't care about the truth, it's just that i don't really know what that is.

back to lurking for me.

I think its just semantics. I've always understood Scotland, England etc to be countries.

Sorry I may have been harsh. The matter of Kings is simple historical record. Shared monarchy started in 1603 when James VI of Scotland became King of England as well. He also declared that England and Scotland would be united though that didn't happen for a while.

The sooner the Scots get independence the better, they can start ****ing their own **** up and we can stop paying for it.

As opposed to ****ing whose **** up?