Reply #24: It depends which contributions you mean.

[oldironside]

T-i-B's original contribution was both unacceptable and out of character, and that probably helped to set a rather sour tone from the word go. As for the reference to Hadrian's Wall, I've heard Billy Connoly himself refer to it as the border on the edge of Roman civilisation, so it stands as a convenient short hand for the England/Scotland border, even if this is historically and geographically wrong.

One could argue that posting nationalist propaganda in a leftist/progressive forum could be seen as provocative, and it certainly seems to have put a few people's backs up.

It is obvious that if the Scots want independence they can have it. They came into the union for financial reasons (i.e. they were skint and needed the English to bail them out) and they have the right to leave it for whatever reason they choose. However, if they expect independence to solve all their problems, they could be in for a shock.

You rightly point out that we are a mongrel nation. Who among us could claim to be 100% English, Scottish, etc, even is we could define what that means? Even if Scotland got independence tomorrow it would be less than absolute. Their biggest trading partner would still be England and it's hard to see this interaction and interdependence ever ending.

Finally, the Scots shouldn't expect the English to respond to naked anti-Englishness with a shrug. We are a proud nation too (and, if you follow Scottish logic from 1967 we are the current world football champions), and don't take kindly to our supposed partners in the union openly braying for our national humiliation at every opportunity. If you can only measure your worth by how much you hate someone else, that is a sure sign of low self esteem.