-
'Voluntarily'?
That's why I said "for all the faults of our mutual history". The English population had no more choice in the matter than the Scots did, but it's still very different from conquest by arms.
I'm also curious as to how you're arrived at the declaration Salmond was only acting in self-interest? Surely he could do all these things as he likes now instead of quitting?
As first minister, even a British politician might feel constrained from maximising his earnings from outside sources. It's clear that back-benchers feel no such compunction. Hence he needs to cash in now, albeit on a more modest scale than Plan A which was to serve one term as Great Leader and retire to spend more time with other people's money as a scaled down Tony Blair.
gbj_tester-
So, based on nothing you're happy to attribute his career motivations and a 24 year dedication to Scottish Independence, as a strategy of 'maximising his earnings'?
It strikes me that if he was solely focused on money he would have remained in the oil or finance industries where he could profiteer at will like so many others do?
I find it hilarious people are so eager and willing to conflate Salmond with Independence as if it was some personal conquest where he wanted to be 'Great Leader'. He's had the honour and good sense to fall on his sword as a gesture of reconciliation and humility in defeat, yet you attribute it solely to 'cashing in' to 'spend time with other people's money'.
Even if it had passed, the chances of him remaining as head of the SNP would have been minimal as he is very aware of his own unpopularity amongst a significant proportion of the electorate-even those who voted SNP. He only came back to the SNP because John Swinney was so woeful and they were at risk of collapsing, and he's always been happy to have Nicola Sturgeon there as his clear successor to ensure a smooth transition.
Really, tester-you are obviously an intelligent person and your contributions on science and technical matters are always interesting but I find it sad when it comes to matters like this you are so quick to indulge strange turns of logic.
deleted
'Voluntarily'?
In the sense that an unelected clique of landowners and lords got together having bankrupted both themselves and the country and performed the merger without the consent of the population at large to save their own privileges?
That they then followed this up with what can only be described as cultural genocide in forcibly clearing people of their lands, burning houses and putting them on ships to the colonies where they were then used to displace other vulnerable people is pretty indicative of how 'voluntary' it was.
I'm also curious as to how you're arrived at the declaration Salmond was only acting in self-interest? Surely he could do all these things as he likes now instead of quitting?