XPost: soc.history.war.misc, soc.culture.scottish, alt.religion.   
   hristian.presbyterian   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian.baptist   
   From: allan@EASYNET.CO.UK   
      
   "Raktizer Omheit"  wrote in message   
   news:455266d2_1@news.iprimus.com.au...   
   >   
   > "allan connochie"  wrote in message   
   > news:455271ad@news.greennet.net...   
   > >   
   > > "Raktizer Omheit"  wrote in message   
   > > news:45510de7_1@news.iprimus.com.au...   
   > >>   
   > >> "allan connochie"  wrote in message   
   > >> Alan, obviously you know more about Scotland's 20th century political   
   > >> history than I do. However, I do know that the Scottish National Party   
   in   
   > >> the 1997 Devolution Referendum only gained 28% for its proposal to   
   grant   
   > >> Scotland full independence from the United Kingdom.   
   > >   
   > > Sorry but you've got your facts completely wrong again! That is always a   
   > > risk when pronouncing facts about countries on the other side of the   
   > > world.   
   > > No-one voted for independence in the Devolution Referendum. Independence   
   > > was   
   > > not an option on the ballot paper - that is why it was called a   
   Devolution   
   > > Referendum! The only options were devolution, that is a devolved   
   > > parliament   
   > > at Holyrood with limited powers, or the status quo. For that reason the   
   > > SNP   
   > > were reluctant for a while to fully support the YES campaign, however by   
   > > the   
   > > time of the referendum they were fully on board with the Labour Party   
   and   
   > > Liberal Democrats whilst the Conservatives supported the status-quo   
   > > option.   
   > > The YES campaign received 74.3% of the vote whilst the NO campaign   
   > > received   
   > > 25.7%.   
   > >   
   > Alan, my local newspaper in 1997 mislead me. It claimed falsely that full   
   > independence was an option. They certainly got that one wrong. The   
   southern   
   > Irish, with full independence, must look down on the northern Irish,   
   Scots,   
   > and Welsh as pro-English collaborators and cowards, for Rome is further   
   away   
   > than London as far as the geographical location of Britain and Ireland is   
   > concerned.   
      
   I've no idea what the people in the Republic truly feel and I'd imagine that   
   like every other nation they are individuals and don't think as one. Though   
   the vast majority that I've met don't live in the past. Basically you can't   
   compare like for like anyway between the various parts and former parts of   
   the UK. The histories and relationships with each other and to the union   
   itself are all so different. As for collaborators well of course the Scots   
   collaborated with the English. From the 17thC when the Scottish king   
   succeeded to the English throne the countries were basically entwined. From   
   the beginning of the 18thC both countries ceased to exist as seperate   
   kingdoms and Great Britain was born. From that point, after the intial   
   unpopularity and difficulties, they acted as one.  The modern independence   
   movement in Scotland, which has only really gron over the last half century,   
   can't be compared with the situation in Ireland at the beginning of the   
   20thC. We are not an occupied country. It is a modern civilised unheated   
   debate as to how Scotland is best run. Do we stay in the union; do we   
   attempt to further change the union (eg full fiscal power to Holyrood); or   
   do we move towards independence.   
      
      
   Allan   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)