ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Scotland was not a Conquered nation when it rejoined the English. In fact the King of Scotland became the King of England.ORIGINAL: radic202
I sit back and read all the arguments pro and against and they are exactly the same arguments that Quebec vs Canada had on 2 occasions. Everyone in here seems to forget that Canada went through 2 Quebec Separatist Referendums. On both occasions the "NO" side won as I look back it has taken years to even get close to any kind of quietness and the issue still comes up for debate amongst the few In Canada/Quebec's cases the Language issue was more of an issue in the debate then the Territorial one we see here. But the similarities are about the same in everything else. Conquered nation, different base cultures, people of mixed ethnicity, marriages and families (like in my case) from both sides of the border, economic ties, currency, debts etc...I can still remember how I cried the night of the results (the second one), I ask you all before you go and debate what if scenarios, simply read up on what happened in Quebec and Canada in 1980 and 1995. So sad though that everyone in here seems to have forgotten what it can and what it will do to 2 people of the same nation.
Am I the only one in here who has not forgotten? Anyways, my heart goes out to all the voters who will have a difficult decision to make.
Now my turn to go read up on why the Aussies decided to keep the Queen (Monarchy) as their head of State on their Referendum: that to me is a personal dilemma that I will never understand.
Conquered may be too strong a word in this case but when one nation or a group of people submit to another nation I consider it conquered. I am not versed on Scottish History so I may be mistaken here and thanks for the insight. Go read the Act of Quebec in 1774 and read what was imposed on the French Canadians in order to "abide" by British Rule. That was a long time ago and mainly forgotten by many but not the few, hence why we had 2 Referendums.