2006-07-06 23:30:57 · 11 answers · asked by calum_scotland 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There are already definite boundaries of "Scotland" and "England". Those won't change, as won't the status of foreign lands. It is a good question for the SNP.
2006-07-06 23:59:51 · answer #1 · answered by captainspizzo 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
we've stood mutually, we've fought mutually and we survived mutually. not in any respect a real situation between us the people. yet all of us understand, even as a political candidate is going on an "ego" vacation, premiere a small band of followers, his imaginative and prescient of grandeur over takes the actuality. Salmond became the elected chief of the SNP and conventional Minister of the Scottish Parliament, yet felt he deserved a much better identify inclusive of his aims. Like slightly Napoleon he had to finish fill his desires of taking Scotland and its people into the political wasteland. He knows that Scotland can not live to inform the tale economically by using itself earnings. His purely option will be to hitch the ecu, not lower than his words, yet those of Herman Von Rompuy the ecu President. This guy has defined the decision for "Independence" as an old project, of years gone by using. So Mr Salmond the position do you want to steer the people of Scotland.? Why have they were given to choose to be diverse from the prevailing relations?
2016-10-14 05:12:54 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most countries annexed by the Great British Empire & trust me we have nothing 2 B proud of, there.
Have been given their own Sovereignty by now & detached themselves from the Queen & Great Britain.
Scotland wanted 2 govern it's self.
Fine, all well & good but here in England we found out recently that the Taxes we pay here in the South have been subsidising the Scots 4 the past decade or so.
They want our money but not our Parliament.
2006-07-06 23:43:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They will stay British, i dont think this will happen anyway. Another reason the lands will be British is because Scotland would not have enough resources or money to secure them.
2006-07-06 23:37:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
With a Scottish born PM a Scottish born Chancellor, a Scottish born Home Sec and Scotland having its own parliament anyway, don't you think you should hang on while you are winning.
2006-07-07 08:38:07 · answer #5 · answered by SouthOckendon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suggest that Scotland has Northern Ireland and the Falklands as they seem to like the Argentinians
2006-07-06 23:36:45 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they will form a new state, the British what left empire
2006-07-06 23:34:42 · answer #7 · answered by aristidetraian 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They will, by international law, be blown up.
2006-07-06 23:37:30 · answer #8 · answered by lampoilman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
should not effect them
2006-07-06 23:36:04 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
nothing
2006-07-06 23:32:11 · answer #10 · answered by sky_blue_king 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋