Precious Few Heroes: The case for Scottish independence (Part 1 of 3)

The Case For Scottish Independence

Whether you're for or against an independent Scotland, or maybe you're not entirely convinced either way, this film makes the positive case for Scottish independence in a light-hearted, self-effacing fashion.

Forget the historic grudges, the ancient battles and the unjustly romanticized idols, Scottish independence isn't about "us and them", it isn't about anti-Englishness, it isn't about ownership, it isn't even about the SNP!

Written by Jack Foster and Alan Hunter

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• scotland
• scottish
• independence
• independent
• politics
• snp
• winnie ewing
• alec salmond
• braveheart
• bonnie prince charlie
• documentary

[m00nshine2004]

An open comment to the Scots. Can you please stop hating the English. It's not about Scotland or England its about class. Substitute the word 'Scottish' for 'working class' in that fantastic Ewan McGregor speech and I hope you take my point.

[jack834834]

@m00nshine2004 don't mistake a desire for self determination as "hating the English". The English are our closest neighbours and our oldest friends, independence can only strengthen our relationship.

[NOVATICANWARS]

Anti Union Propaganda. well made , Skilfull. . But..When King James of Scotland Became King OF Britian, that,s whatmade us the one country, .Legal Union was accomplished in !707., With the consent of a majority of the scots parties.popular opposition to it has been grossly exageratedand well within the next 100 years people had settled down.The Sepratists(snp) have litterally BILLIONS of pounds Behind them and have been conducting a propaganda campaign thru their,well paid stooges in the media

[jack834834]

@NOVATICANWARS The film makes very clear the situation re the union of the crowns, devoting a specific segment to that very topic - so it's difficult to see what your beef is there. Legal union was accomplished with the consent of a political majority as a result of fairly well documented bribery (so the exaggeration or otherwise of public outcry is neither here nor there really). This is not an SNP or pro SNP film, but to suggest that the media is somehow an SNP propaganda machine is laughable

[NOVATICANWARS]

@jack834834 \\\\\\thefilmis entitled The case for Scottish independence. and it puts it over well. using"the very soft sell"Scottish radio and tv are in the hands of the supporters of the sepratists.

[jack834834]

@NOVATICANWARS if only my friend.  if only.

[baudron]

This video will open many people's eyes the truth is out there newsnetscotland

[WooyCaWoowian]

Why are you overly concerned about The Scottish Independence debate when England is in much greater danger of being absorbed by the agenda and vested interests of the Multi-National Corporations. In England, legalism thrives, justice is almost non-existent, and the voice of the common folk is ignored which is treason. Why would the Scottish want to continue with this?

[MrRabioza]

@NOVATICANWARS not sure if separists due preech hatered but I'm sure you know your stuff to make such a satement? i.e. do you have links to any evidence I can read? may be a vote swinger if you do :-)

[MrRabioza]

@NOVATICANWARS ha ha, ok, point taken :-)

[NOVATICANWARS]

@MrRabioza And i trust you will remain "confused"..

[NOVATICANWARS]

@TheKnightsOfCamelot Anyone anywhere can be born anywhere. If a Zulu or an Eskimo or an Australian happens to give birth,in..say Glasgow ...Does that make the offspring "Scottish"?? Of course not, never in a Billion years. If they are brought up here as say, a Bhuddist ,.. Scottish?? The differences between the indiginous people,s of our island or so slight as to be non existent, the sepratists say hate your fellow Briton because they were born in Leeds or London or Newcastle!Unity NOT division!

[MrRabioza]

@NOVATICANWARS you stated 'King James of Britain'. Also, legal union accomplished in 1707? they were two completelty different unions and so dont get how somehow 1707 made the first legal union? i.e. the first was a union of crowns (nothing to do with 2 countries merging) and the second was a parlimentary union (nothing to do with crown union which already existed). Queen Anne (first British Monarch) had no influence on the parlimentry union so I'm confused as to why it is now the 'legal' union.

[NOVATICANWARS]

@MrRabioza i stated that " legal union was accomplished in 1707"..."de facto" James achieved this when he became King of England and ireland.