Broadsheet Editorial



Tomorrow Scotland faces a choice. A serious choice. A choice the choosing of which will have implications for years to come. A choice about the future, about the very existence of these islands. Broadsheet has long been proud of its independence on questions of caledonian constitutionality. But as the clouds of war gather above Berwick-upon-Tweed we feel the time has come to make a stand.
The history of the relationship between Scotland and England is long and irrelevant. Tomorrow’s referendum is not about the past. It is about Thursday, and all the Thursdays to come.
We urge our Scottish readers to vote Yes, and when you win your place among the nations of the world we will raise a scotch and proudly utter the ancient blessing “iechyd da.”


Sponsored Link

77 thoughts on “Broadsheet Editorial

    1. Caroline

      Get used to it.

      There’s more stuff whooshing over people’s heads on this website than a free class at Hogwarts.

  1. DryWeaveTopSheet

    Would be interesting to know your reasons for urging a Yes vote. I’d favour Yes myself but I suspect that’s based on (a) Celtic solidarity and (b) fascination in what will actually happen it they go for it. What are the niggly issues no-one has thought about yet? How will they settle the massive issues like currency and Trident?

    1. scottser

      i was reading in the inde-rag today that scotland won’t be allowed join the eu or use the euro. this is our opportunity to allow our scottish cousins to use the ‘double irish’ tax loop to our mutual advantage. scottish industry could channel all their exports and revenue through us before it hits the european market in return for a few bob in corpo tax.

      1. Slightly Bemused

        They can’t be stopped using the Euro, or for that matter Sterling. As with many other countries who use the US dollar or the Euro (Montenegro & Kosovo for example) a sovereign state can decide to use another currency, or peg their own to it. They cannot join the Eurozone, or influence exchange rates etc, but they can decide to use it, and the EU cannot stop them.

      2. Ms Piggy

        I thought the issue was that the price of their being allowed independent membership of the EU was that they would *have* to use the euro and join Schengen (sorry, can’t be arsed to look up the spelling!). Which is why – since England isn’t it it – there actually might be border controls at the Scottish-English border!! And for what it’s worth, if I had a vote it would be Yes, simply because (as an English person myself) I think England has got a good kicking coming to it from Scotland. Plus, I think Scotland might rather enjoy being independent of their patronizing London overlords.

          1. Milk Teeth

            Yeah existing opt outs stand but if you’re a new member you have to sign up to all the facits of the union including the Euro and Schegen. And people are speculating that Scotland may have to join as a new member.

    1. Slightly Bemused

      `Well, you could look at it from the point of view of the name “the British isles”. Given “Britain” is considered to be England and Wales, with “Great Britain” including Scotland, would their departure from the Union negate the “Great Britishness” of the whole island, therefore affecting the terminology and once more throwing the designation of the isles to the north into dispute?

      If Wales and, god forbid, England, were to leave the Union, perhaps it will turn out the Chinese were more prophetic than we thought (!

      1. tinyd

        Great Britain is merely a geographic term whether or not Scotland remains in the UK. The “Great” is to distinguish it from the ‘other’ Britain, Brittany.

        1. Daffyd

          The ‘other’ Britain, believe it or not, is actually Wales. There’s a handy clue in the Irish translation of Wales as “An Bhreatain Bheag” and of Great Britain as “An Bhreatain Mhór”. It’s said that the Welsh are the original Brittons, pushed into their present corner of the UK by all and sundry from the Anglo-Saxons to the Romans to whatever you’re having yourself.

      2. gravegav

        Don’t be making up stuff. In common usage, Britain is just an abbreviation of Great Britain – there’s no geographical differentiation. Technically, Great Britain includes the entire island – England, Scotland and Wales – and Great Britain is that plus the offshore islands (of which there are around 6,000).

  2. NiallJames

    Ah, I was just being pedantic…existence on the islands may well be affected by the outcome of the referendum alight…but the very existence of islands is hardly in jeopardy.

    And I did so well not complaining about it being Berwick-UPON-Tweed…what a petty, petty man I am…

  3. The People's Hero

    “A choice about the future, about the very existence of these islands.”

    Let’s be clear about something. Whatever happens tomorrow, these islands will not cease to exist. Friday morning, the sun might shine but it might also rain. Birds will tweet as will a hundred million Twitter users.

    Life will go on regardless. Your stance is laudable but your embellishment is, well, twee.

  4. H

    If they do vote yes they will be non-EU so people crossing the border will be able to buy duty free booze – woohoo!

  5. Jim Computer

    Let me get this straight;
    -England is irrelevant, and any day after today is the future.

    Thanks Briadsheet.
    Where would we be without you?

  6. Frenchfarmer

    A wee Celtic union might be a tough one to beat, and a northern britian more on a level with Scandinavia.
    Says he from central france.

  7. rotide

    I don’t think I’ve laughed as hard at a post on broadsheet in a long time.

    “A choice about the future, about the very existence of these islands.”

    What type of drugs are you on in BS HQ? The very existence of these islands? You want to be taken seriously after opening with THAT?

    Also, When you encourage foreign nationals to behave in a certain way in their country (Oh hi american pro life money, you have company!), you could actually give some, you know , reasons as to why?

    This reads like and has all the impact of a junior cert essay about climate change.

    1. Sancho

      Have to agree. I’d like a “yes” too but that’s because we Irish have a love self determination. 800 years etc. it’s in our make up. Also, we love to see the English get a kicking. 800 years… Lastly, I’m really curious as to what would happen after. That said, neither of the first two reasons are especially rational, and the third reason has all the maturity of trying to convince your drunk mate to eat a really hot chilli because it’d be fun to see what happens.

      It would appear broadsheet’s opinion has about the same amount of credibility and rational basis. At least I’m honest with myself. (*Pats back)

      That all said, not sure how great independence would be for Scotland. They’re a lot like us so chances are they’ll elect friends, irrespective of merit and the political system will descend into parish pump politics, corruption and general mismanagement. Good times!

        1. Evil Geraldine

          It’s a parody of a portentous newspaper editorial. You’ve correctly identified that it is not funny, unfortunately that doesn’t excuse you from realising that it’s not meant literally.

        2. rotide

          Well it might work as a parody if broadsheet didn’t have a massive editorial slant and pretensions to journalism.

          As it stands, it’s the equivalent of me saying “I have a car you know, it does 1 million miles to the gallon”, you saying “That’s stupid” and me saying “HAHAHA FOOLED YOU, I DONT HAVE A CAR”

          This is either ridiculous or a joke that isn’t close to funny in any way.

          1. Evil Geraldine

            You not getting it and then getting all thick and shouty about it has certainly upped the entertainment quotient, I’ll give you that.

          2. rotide

            I wasn’t getting shouty. The shouty was a ‘parody’ of the parody.

            See, jokes get bad when you have to explain them,.

        1. Casey


  8. Mick Flavin


    Taking your editorial at face value, and suppressing what little comedic sensibility I possess, I am extremely disappointed in your biased and frankly nonsensical ramblings. One would almost think that you were attempting humour.
    Consider my subscription cancelled forthwith.

    Yours etc,
    Michael Flavin,
    Rere Nerney’s Marquee,
    Co. Longford.

      1. Mick Flavin

        I’m keeping the binder.

        I’m also refusing to part with the unfinished week-by-week-assembled charming scale model of Chompsky. I only need the thymus, spleen and bellybutton to complete it. Márla transplants will now have to suffice.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link