We cultivate the fields and precision drill

We cultivate the fields and precision drill
The good wheat in the land
apply fertiliser and herbicide
to give it a helping hand
It needs the cold of winter
summer warmth to swell the grain
the fungicide and the sunshine
and soft refreshing rain

All foods of the world around us

became available after the Columbian Exchange

Then thank our ancestors, O thank ingenuity 

That we live after the 16th Century

Evolution is the maker

Of all things near and far

It paints the wayside flowers

It shapes the mammals &  birds

The winds and waves are governed

By the sun and moon

And by our smart endeavour, to our children

We give our daily bread

All foods of the world around us

became available after the Columbian Exchange

Then thank inquisitiveness, O thank ingenuity 

That we live after the 16th Century

We thank Thee, o our forefathers

For all foods delicious and good

from New World and from Old World

Giving life, health and good mood

These gifts have we to offer

To all the word these gifts impart

And that which we desirest

Are humble, thankful hearts

IT'S PIZZA JIM BUT NOT AS WE KNOW IT

The Old World Gods would not have been able to offer their followers pizza as it requires tomatoes which are native to the Americas  The Old World Gods failed to predict the existence of the New World or its food crops such as potatoes, squash, green beans, sweet corn, avocado, cocoa, turkey, peanuts, vanilla, papaya, pineapple, sweet & chili peppers, coca leaves to make coca-cola, large strawberries, ( tobacco is of doubtful benefit but still a reminder of the Great America's ) McLevi's was more likely to offer unleavened bread with a sprinkling of locusts & pickled snake. Acts 10v12 St Peter's table cloth does not include an image of a turkey or even specifically pork, though I expect that is implied but does include reptiles, no wonder Peter wasn't tempted to partake

Old Macdonald had a windfarm

Old MacDonald had a successful economy EIEIO
But his windfarms led to its ruin ERoEI
With subsidies here and lack of dispatchable power there
Here some hype, there some spin, everywhere wind turbines
Old MacDonald had a disaster on his hands EIEIO

Old MacDonald had an animal farm ERoEI
And in Westminister some MPs had their snouts in the trough ERoEI
With half truths here and some spin there,
Here some hype, there some spin, generous subsidies everywhere
A moo moo here, a moo moo there, here a moo, there a moo, everywhere a moo moo
Old MacDonald had a ponzi scheme  on his hands EIEIO

Old MacDonald had a windfarm ERoEI
And the electricity supply was running out of luck ERoEI
With subsidies here and  power cuts there
Here some hype, there some spin, everywhere wind turbines lying still
A quack quack here, an oink oink there, here a moo there a moo ,everywhere windfarms lying still, power cuts here , black outs there, many regrets everywhere
Old MacDonald had a disaster on his hands EIEIO

Old MacDonald had reliable nuclear power stations ERoEI
But he closed them down along with the coal power ones  EIEIO
With a lack of dispatchable power here and power cuts there
Here some hype, there some spin, everywhere wind turbines lying becalmed
A neigh, neigh here, a quack quack there, here an oink there an oink, everywhere a moo, moo
power cuts here, black outs there, wind turbines a source of great despair
A grunt grunt  here and a quack quack there, here a neigh there a neigh everywhere a moo moo
Old MacDonald had a disaster on his hands EIEIO

See

KIDS MUSIC-Old MacDonald Had A Farm

Chancey H

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R7ng1b9KZE

Oh Greatly evolving God, Updateable and teachable, worthy are you of praise

When choosing a God, if there is no real cosmic one to be found, then one really ought to at least choose one which is evolvable. If " God " is defined as being the set of ideas currently viewed as being the best structure for society to operate by or the understanding of the world about us which is closest to reality then you would expect that " God " should evolve as new data comes in.

We should have expected the psalms to sing praises to the God who is ever evolving, adapting, learning, updateable, adjusting previous conduct manuals to incorporate new ideas which might enhance the lot of his subjects on Earth.
You would expect by now that Allah would be shouting at its followers, " Switch to English common law, shariah isn't fit for the 21st century, it contains arbitrary pointless taboos and unnecessarily severe penalties "

Where are there examples of self analysis, self criticism in the scriptures? Wouldn't a God have tried out policies on his new found humanity, observed how they worked out then changed the bits that were having a negative effect. FEEDBACK ?

Sadly Psalm 102v27, " You remain the same "
Malachi 3v6, " I the lord do not change " [ Except he changed between O.T. & N.T. ]
Hebrews13v 8, "J.C is the same yesterday, today, and forever."

So I expect that after hearing exactly the same joke in heaven for the millionth time the saved will be like, " Grief, this is hellish, God you are boring the socks off me "

Old World religions failed to predict existence of Tobacco or its effects

Well done Ayaan Hirsi Ali for giving a civilized & detailed critique of Islam & Koran

One of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s best points IMO was at 1:17:00 where she says ~ we are dealing with documents like the Koran which were written a long time ago, in the 7th century, .. we are talking about the morality of the 7th century. These documents should be in museums but today it is disturbing that there are so many Moslems who use the Koran like a drivers manual.

Like John Loftus says; these are writings from a superstitious, pre-scientific age.

The ability of the shamans of the the Abrahamic religions to predict things is more pathetic than prophetic

Not only did Islam fail to predict the existence of the Americas but it also failed to predict the existence of tobacco, even after tobacco was brought to the Old World Islam failed to give a correct critique of the effect of tobacco smoke on humans. They failed to have a revelation that nicotine, though addictive, causes little harm in comparison to the smoke which causes cancer etc. Added to this failure was the inability of Allah to miraculously free people from nicotine addiction or to provide a method of quitting. It was not Islam which came up with E-cigarettes or personal vaporizers. Instead it was the Chinese who invented the PV and scientists who gathered data & did experiments to almost fully explain the workings of tobacco smoke and ways to escape the addiction to it.

The books of John W. Loftus are like the Personal Vaporizer which allow people to enjoy the leaves of scripture without getting addicted to its drug or getting cancer from its holy smoke. They also do a lot to blow away the religious smoke screen of obfuscation.

For a detailed explanation of the effects of smoking & studies on attempts to quit smoking & on the pros and cons of E-cigarettes see Youtube video by Dr Lynne Dawkins of University of East London, "Electronic cigarettes: What we know so far "

This is 21st century thought on the subject. It doesn't order anyone about what to do but just offers an impartial understanding on the subject so that people can make a free & informed choice.

See links in wikipedia on tobacco

Sir Walter Raleigh is credited with taking the first "Virginia" tobacco to Europe, referring to it as tobah as early as 1578. In 1595 Anthony Chute published Tabaco, which repeated earlier arguments about the benefits of the plant and emphasised the health-giving properties of pipe-smoking.

The importation of tobacco into Europe was not without resistance and controversy in the 17th century. Stuart King James I wrote a famous polemic titled A Counterblaste to Tobacco in 1604, in which the king denounced tobacco use as "[a] custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."

The Styx (/stɪks/; Ancient Greek: Στύξ [stýkʰs], "Hate, Detest") is a river in Greek mythology that formed the boundary between Earth and the Underworld (the domain usually called Hades, which is also the name of its ruler). {SEE Semele _ perished, consumed in lightning-ignited flame - what happens when you smoke ? But some PVs have exploded in people's faces too.}

Tobacco first arrived in the Ottoman Empire in the late 16th century, where it attracted the attention of doctors and became a commonly prescribed medicine for many ailments. Although tobacco was initially prescribed as medicine, further study led to claims that smoking caused dizziness, fatigue, dulling of the senses, and a foul taste/odour in the mouth.

Sultan Murad IV banned smoking in the Ottoman Empire in 1633, and the offense was punishable by death. When the ban was lifted by his successor, Ibrahim the Mad, it was instead taxed. In 1682, Damascene jurist Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulsi declared: “Tobacco has now become extremely famous in all the countries of Islam ... People of all kinds have used it and devoted themselves to it ... I have even seen young children of about five years applying themselves to it.” In 1750, a Damascene townsmen observed “a number of women greater than the men, sitting along the bank of the Barada River. They were eating and drinking, and drinking coffee and smoking tobacco just as the men were doing. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Niall Ferguson article in Telegraph 18th September 2014

Scottish referendum: Alone, Scotland will go back to being a failed state

Yes supporters are hoping Scotland will become a Scandinavian paradise. But with its history of bitter internal divisions, it is likely to go the opposite way

No good deed goes unpunished. In granting residents of Scotland a referendum on their country’s political future, David Cameron surely thought he was doing a good deed. The Scottish National Party would have to put up or shut up. A Yes vote would be a victory for them. A No vote would be a victory for the Scottish Labour Party bigwigs to whom Mr Cameron entrusted the campaign against independence, in the belief that he – despite being the son of a Scotsman – was less qualified than they to make the case for the Union.

If Mr Cameron gave a thought to his own self-interest, it can only have been a fleeting one. Before he became prime minister, I once suggested to him that a referendum on Scottish independence might be a Machiavellian masterstroke. If it went the wrong way, I suggested, playing devil’s advocate, might not the Tories rule for ever more in the remaining UK?

I hope I betray no confidences when I say that a cloud crossed his face at this suggestion. Mr Cameron was, and remains, a staunch Unionist. Like me, he abhors the thought of the break-up of Britain. His family tree, like that of my three half-English children, is the Union in microcosm.

Perhaps, on reflection, he was therefore not Machiavellian enough. For he must surely now regret his good deed. Whatever the result on Thursday – unless by some poll-defying miracle it is a decisive “No” – Mr Cameron seems certain to be weakened by it.

Returning to my birthplace, Glasgow, last week (to deliver a long-planned, non-panic-induced lecture), I struggled to work out why it has come to this. The obvious, proximate causes do not quite suffice. True, “Better Together” has made the Union sound like a case study in a worthy but deadly dull economics textbook. By contrast, the Yes campaign has been a scaled-up version of Alex Salmond’s persona: disarming, genial, reassuring, upbeat and unscrupulous.

But what I encountered in Scotland last week was not just a tale of two campaigns. It was a tale of two countries. My Scotland – as proudly British as it is Scottish, imbued with a sense of our unique historical contribution – is still there, but it has fallen silent. Another Scotland has sprung up alongside it that is quite different. It pretends to be multicultural but is in truth subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) anti-English. It could not care less about Scotland’s past, except as something to be distorted for political ends. And this other Scotland is very, very noisy.

I wish I had a fiver – yes, a Bank of England one please – for every rude name I have been called since I re-entered this fray. (Most are unprintable, but “weegie bampot” gives you a flavour. A "weegie" is a Glaswegian. I have never been sure what a "bampot" is, but it’s a great insult.)

In the lengthy discussion that followed my lecture, virtually every question was from a Yes supporter. (The worst came from that insufferable type of person who is always claiming to feel “offended” by something. Most, I should say, were civil.) The common objection was that my argument for the Union was rooted in the past. But what did history have to do with Scotland’s future as a new Scandinavian-style haven for egalitarianism, inclusiveness, clean energy, world peace and all the other things implicitly repudiated by the gimlet-eyed Tory bampots?

Well, perhaps there is no point in reasoning with those who have resolved not to learn from history. Nevertheless, let me try to explain why Scotland is not – and is highly unlikely to become – a Scandinavian country.

Scottish history offers proof that even the most failed state can be fixed – by uniting with a richer and more tranquil neighbour. For most of the early modern period, the Scots kingdom was Europe’s Afghanistan. In the Highlands and the Hebrides, feudal warlords ruled over an utterly impoverished populace in conditions of lawlessness and internecine clan conflict. In the Lowlands, religious zealots who fantasised about a Calvinist theocracy – government by the godly Elect – prohibited dancing, drinking and drama. John Knox and his ilk were the Taliban of the Reformation. Witches were burnt in large numbers in Scotland, not in England.

Being the Scottish monarch was one of Europe’s most dangerous jobs. James I was murdered. James II died besieging Roxburgh Castle. James III also died in battle. So did James IV, at Flodden in 1513. James V died after yet another defeat at the hands of the English at Solway Moss. Mary I – Mary Queen of Scots – was actually imprisoned and executed by the English. James VI’s reaction on hearing that he had succeeded the woman who had condemned his mother to death was not one of repugnance but relief. As King James I of England, he could not wait to relocate south.

A key difference between Scotland and Sweden in this era was that Scotland was both small enough and weak enough to be the object of constant interference by its bigger neighbours, England and France. The Reformation made the problem especially severe because it divided Scotland between the Calvinist Lowlands and the mainly Catholic Highlands. This meant that, after Henry VIII’s Reformation, the Catholic powers of the continent could always look to the north of Scotland for support. Yet, as Charles I discovered, the Lowlands Scots were so zealous in their Protestantism that they were just as likely to revolt against an Anglican King if he showed signs of “Popery”. The net result was that from the 1630s until the 1740s Scotland was a far bigger source of political instability than Ireland.

The Union of the Parliaments in 1707 turned “Scotlanistan” into the Silicon Valley of 18th-century Europe, with Glasgow University as Stanford. The Union was a success partly because it sublimated these bitter Scottish divisions in a larger United Kingdom, while at the same time launching the country on an extraordinary economic boom that only really ran out of steam in the Sixties.

As in every heavy industrial economy, Scotland’s coalmines, steelworks and shipyards were bound to be shuttered or shrunk in our time. Pittsburgh, Essen and Turin did not fare much better than Glasgow. Yet somehow the story took root that Scotland’s economic restructuring was all the fault of the arch-bampot Margaret Thatcher. And then came Alex Salmond with his fairy tale that an independent Scotland could become a Scandinavian paradise.

Hardly any Yes voter appears aware that Sweden turned away from egalitarianism long ago. None of them seems to ever have bought an eye-poppingly expensive drink in Norway, much less seen a Danish tax bill.

The reality is that, as an independent country, Scotland would be far more likely to revert to its pre-1707 bad habits than to morph magically into “Scandland”. For this debate on independence has opened some old rifts and created some new ones, too

Many No voters I met complained of an atmosphere of intimidation. I tried to organise a group of pro-Union historians based in Scotland to write a letter backing the No campaign. I was told that, at most, two would be willing to sign. Most disturbing of all were the stories of SNP bigwigs issuing thinly veiled warnings to institutions perceived to be insufficiently Yes-istic. Jim Sillars’s warning to BP and the big banks of a “day of reckoning” is part of a sinister pattern.

This, then, gives us a hint of what Alex Salmond’s brave new Scotland would really be like: a divided and rancorous society with a vindictive style of politics. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it nicely sums up Scotland as it was before the Union.

So pity Mr Cameron if he is punished for his good deed. But console yourself with the thought of Mr Salmond’s far worse fate. He may be about to get what he wished for.

.

David I of Scotland

When David I of Scotland's brother Alexander I of Scotland died in 1124, David chose, with the backing of Henry I, to take the Kingdom of Scotland (Alba) for himself. He was forced to engage in warfare against his rival and nephew, Malcolm, Alexander I's son. Subduing the latter seems to have taken David ten years, a struggle that involved the destruction ofÓengus, Mormaer of Moray.

David's time as Prince of the Cumbrians and Earl marks the beginning of his life as a great territorial lord. His earldom probably began in 1113, when Henry I arranged David's marriage to Maud, 2nd Countess of Huntingdon (Matilda), who was the heiress to the Huntingdon–Northampton lordship. As her husband, David used the title of earl, and there was the prospect that David's children by her would inherit some of the honours borne by Matilda's father, such as the Honour of Huntingdon

After the death of his former patron Henry I, David supported the claims of Henry's daughter and his own niece, Empress Matilda, to the throne of England. In the process, he came into conflict with King Stephen and was able to expand his power in northern England, despite his defeat at the Battle of the Standard in 1138.

The term "Davidian Revolution" is used by many scholars to summarise the changes which took place in the Kingdom of Scotland during his reign. These included his foundation of burghs, implementation of the ideals of Gregorian Reform, foundation of monasteries, Normanisation of the Scottish government, and the introduction of feudalism through immigrant French and Anglo-French knights.

David was the independence-loving king trying to build a "Scoto-Northumbrian" realm by seizing the most northerly parts of the English kingdom. In this perspective, David's support for Matilda is used as a pretext for land-grabbing. David's maternal descent from the House of Wessex and his son Henry's maternal descent from the English Earls of Northumberland is thought to have further encouraged such a project, a project which came to an end only after Henry II ordered David's child successor Máel Coluim IV to hand over the most important of David's gains. It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other.

Battle of the Standard and Second Treaty of Durham

By later July, 1138, the two Scottish armies had reunited in "St Cuthbert's land", that is, in the lands controlled by the Bishop of Durham, on the far side of the river Tyne. Another English army had mustered to meet the Scots, this time led by William, Earl of Aumale. The victory at Clitheroe was probably what inspired David to risk battle. David's force, apparently 26,000 strong and several times larger than the English army, met the English on 22 August at Cowdon Moor near Northallerton, North Yorkshire.

The Battle of the Standard, as the encounter came to be called, was a defeat for the Scots. Afterwards, David and his surviving notables retired to Carlisle. Although the result was a defeat, it was not by any means decisive. David retained the bulk of his army and thus the power to go on the offensive again. The siege of Wark, for instance, which had been going on since January, continued until it was captured in November. David continued to occupy Cumberland as well as much of Northumberland

On 9 April, 1138 David and Stephen's wife Matilda of Boulogne met each other at Durham and agreed a settlement. David's son Henry was given the earldom of Northumberland and was restored to the earldom of Huntingdon and lordship of Doncaster; David himself was allowed to keep Carlisle and Cumberland. King Stephen was to retain possession of the strategically vital castles of Bamburgh and Newcastle. This effectively fulfilled all of David's war aims

The settlement with Stephen was not set to last long. The arrival in England of the Empress Matilda gave David an opportunity to renew the conflict with Stephen

This civil war, or "the Anarchy" as it was later called, enabled David to strengthen his own position in northern England. While David consolidated his hold on his own and his son's newly acquired lands, he also sought to expand his influence. The castles at Newcastle and Bamburgh were again brought under his control, and he attained dominion over all of England north-west of the river Ribble and Pennines, while holding the north-east as far south as the river Tyne, on the borders of the core territory of the bishopric of Durham. While his son brought all the senior barons of Northumberland into his entourage, David rebuilt the fortress of Carlisle. Carlisle quickly replaced Roxburgh as his favoured residence. David's acquisition of the mines at Alston on the South Tyne enabled him to begin minting the Kingdom of Scotland's first silver coinage.

The ominous fog of 18th September 2014

There has been an ominous fog over Edinburgh today. It is an interesting coincidence that the Battle of Alnwick in 1174 was fought in the fog. Alnwick castle was used as a stand in setting for Hogwarts castle in the novel, " Harry Potter ", written by J.K. Rowling who supported the Better Together campaign.

See Wikipedia, " Battle of Alnwick "

William the Lion had inherited the title of Earl of Northumbria in 1152. However, he had to give up this title to King Henry II of England in 1157. He spent much of his reign trying to regain his lost territory.

In 1173, whilst Henry II was occupied in fighting against his sons in the Revolt of 1173–1174, William saw his opportunity and invaded Northumbria. He advanced on Newcastle but found the partly built stone castle too strong to allow him to take the town. He also attacked Prudhoe Castle but found the defences too strong. Unwilling to undertake a lengthy siege, William returned to Scotland.

In 1174, William again invaded Northumbria with an even larger army that included a contingent of Flemish mercenaries. The army was said to have numbered eighty thousand men, but this is almost certainly an exaggeration. This time he avoided Newcastle but attacked Prudhoe Castle again. The castle had been strengthened since the previous year and after a siege of three days William moved north to besiege Alnwick...

William I of Scotland ( the Lion ), made the fatal error of allowing his army to spread out, instead of concentrating them around his base at Alnwick. On the night of 11 July, a party of about four hundred mounted knights, led by Ranulf de Glanvill, set out from Newcastle and headed towards Alnwick. This small fighting force contained several seasoned knights, who had fought against the Scots before. They reached Alnwick shortly after dawn after becoming lost in heavy fog. There they found William’s encampment, where the Scottish king was only protected by a bodyguard of perhaps sixty fighting men. At the sound of alarm, William rushed from his tent and hurriedly prepared to fight. The English force charged and the Scottish king and his bodyguard met the charge head on. The fighting did not last long. William’s horse was killed beneath him and he was captured. Those of his followers who had not been killed surrendered.

Alnwick Castle guards a road crossing the River Aln. Yves de Vescy, Baron of Alnwick, erected the first parts of the castle in about 1096. The castle was first mentioned in 1136 when it was captured by King David I of Scotland. At this point it was described as "very strong". It was besieged in 1172 and again in 1174 by William the Lion, King of Scotland and William was captured outside the walls during the Battle of Alnwick.

William was held at Newcastle for a time but it was not considered strong enough, and he was finally moved to Falaise in Normandy. Whilst he was there, Henry sent an army to occupy part of Scotland, with its five strongest castles: Roxburgh, Berwick, Jedburgh, Edinburgh and Stirling.

To obtain his freedom, William was forced to sign the Treaty of Falaise, under which he swore an oath of allegiance to the English king and agreed to the garrisoning of the captured castles by English soldiers at Scottish expense. When William was released, after signing the treaty, he travelled back to Scotland via Newcastle, and was attacked by a mob; such was the antipathy of the local people towards Scottish invaders.

The Treaty of Falaise lasted for fifteen years until Richard the Lionheart effectively sold the castle back to William in order to fund his crusade to the Holy Land.

Ranulf de Glanvill died at the siege of Acre in 1190.
The Siege of Acre was one of the first confrontations of the Third Crusade, lasting from August 28, 1189 until July 12, 1191, and the first time in history that the King of Jerusalem was compelled to personally see to the defence of the Holy Land.It was also the deadliest event of the whole period of the Crusades for the Christian ruling class of the east. Nevertheless, it was a key victory for the Crusaders and a serious defeat for Saladin, who had hoped to destroy the whole of the Crusader kingdom

The massacre of Ayyadieh occurred on 20 August 1191. It was perpetrated by Richard Coeur de Lion, better known as Richard the Lion Heart, during the Crusades to recover the holy land from the saracens under the command of Saladin. It is best understood in the context of Richard's attempt to take the city of Acre. The struggle for the city was unusually vicious even by Crusade standards, where little mercy was shown or asked for by soldiers on both sides, and massacres were commonplace, particularly against the citizens of a captured city.

On the fall of Acre, Richard attempted to negotiate with Saladin offering a large number of captured prisoners in exchange for the True Cross (reputedly the actual cross upon which Jesus Christ had been crucified), together with a large ransom and a number of Christian captives taken by Saladin's men in earlier clashes with the crusaders.

The exchange was broken off and further negotiations were unsuccessful. Richard had also insisted on the handover of Philip's share of the prisoners, whom the French king had entrusted to his kinsman Conrad of Montferrat. Conrad reluctantly agreed, under pressure. On August 20, Richard thought that Saladin had delayed too much, and had 2,700 of the Muslim prisoners from the garrison of Acre decapitated ("Massacre at Ayyadieh"). Saladin responded in kind, killing all of the Christian prisoners he had captured. On August 22, Richard and his army left the city, given in custody to the crusaders Bertram de Verdun and Étienne de Longchamps.

A poem by a Shetlander:

A poem by a Shetlander: 

Such a parcel of sheep in a nation

We live in a land wealthy and free, with healthcare and
welfare for all.

But it’s not enough, to have all this stuff; we must answer
the nationalist call.

The grass will be greener; our streets will be cleaner, high
wages and zero inflation.

No need to explain, everybody will gain, such a parcel of
sheep in a nation.

We’ll get handouts aplenty; we can retire when we’re twenty,
mortgages at 0%.

Or if we so choose, get a cottage in the mews, with oil
money paying the rent.

We’ll share out the wealth and improve our health, oil will
be our salvation.

We’ll stop growing old; we’ll have streets paved with gold, such
a parcel of sheep in a nation.

Don’t ask me how we’ll defend ourselves, or what we’ll use
for money.

Just have faith and follow me, to the land of milk and
honey.

Practice your rants and racist chants, as you take a small
libation.

And collect your dole as you head to the polls, such a
parcel of sheep in a nation.

The results will come in, we’ll be wearing a grin, our dreams
have come to fruition.

We’ll pour another and toast our brothers, and gloat at our
new found position.

As our hangover clears we’ll awaken to fears last night was
a big celebration.

In the cold light of day it’ll be time to pay, such a parcel
of sheep in a nation.

Poem by Bubblyjock on The Telegraph

AWAKE YE NATIONALISTS AWAKE

Wake up, Wake up an' answer me this, 
Where is the joy an' where is the bliss,
In draggin' us doon to a miserable state?
For a' that ye've gained is nothing but hate,
Frae within and withoot an' just because you,
Wi' ‘Sturgie Fishwife’ an' ‘Sillars the Clown’
Side wi' Eckie the Ego’s bully boy crew
Aye agitatin' and draggin' us down!

Wake up, Wake up; tae wha’s really to blame,
For stirrin’ the hate tha’s wreckin’ my hame?
Ye've reopened the wounds of our long ago wars
O' aye fichtin' each other, then laying the cause,
On oor English cousins frae south of the border
Aye screaming oot loud wi' a' agrieved vim, 
“But it wisnae me!” that caused oor disorder,
“It was yon Sassenach; I ken it was Him!!”

Is it me or ye wha scorns bein’ British?
Is it me or ye wha’s a' humpty an’ skittish?
Aye tauntin’ the English, aye shoutin a’ down,
An screamin’ abuse at a’ wha’d dare frown,
On a Scotland noo shunned south o’ the border?
Naw! It’s ye Nationalist an we ken on wha’s order,
The one wi’ the snarls an’ a his screws loose,
Yon 'Eckie the Ego' wha thinks he’s the Bruce!

Wake up, Wake up, for a' oor sakes, Wake!
Awake from your trance afore it’s too late,
Snap oot the fuddle that has ye cross eyed,
So blind to the bull of your Eck Piper Pied,
As he carries on puffin' an' spoutin' his lies,
On the riches he says will be spread among a’,
‘boot how our wee nation‘s a’ set for blue skies,
As he fills up his breeks wi’ yon Northern Sea’s gold!!

Wake up, wake up; the cat’s oot the bag,
That a’ that Eck gies is nothing but blag, 
An’ bullyin’ bluff; he’s a posturin’ prancer,
A cunnin’ wee rogue, a dangerous chancer,
For as each day goes by it’s clear tae us a’,
He’s reckless an’ careless wi’ oor bonny Nation,
As he aye just tackles the man no the baw,
Draggin’ us doon tae hell an’ perdition!

For he’s sic a sliporous, slithrous beastie,
Wi’ nothin’ but hubris an’ spite in his breastie,
His schemin’ was ne’er for Scotland’s salvation,
It's a’ just aboot his ane coronation,
So’s he can squat on the grand Stane o’ Scone,
An’ smirk at the English frae the Bruce throne,
Wi’ the rest o' us serfs just a’ left to droon,
In his sea o’ rash promises ne'er to be known!!

David Cameron's plea to the people of Scotland to vote NO :

We meet in a week that could change the United Kingdom forever.

Indeed, it could end the United Kingdom as we know it.

On Thursday, Scotland votes, and the future of our country is at stake. On Friday, people could be living in a different country, with a different place in the world and a different future ahead of it.

This is a decision that could break up our family of nations, and rip Scotland from the rest of the UK.

And we must be very clear. There’s no going back from this. No re-run.

This is a once-and-for-all decision.

If Scotland votes yes, the UK will split, and we will go our separate ways forever.

When people vote on Thursday they are not just voting for themselves, but for their children and grandchildren and the generations beyond.

So I want to speak directly to the people of this country today about what is at stake.

I speak for millions of people across England, Wales and Northern Ireland – and many in Scotland, too who would be utterly heart-broken by the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Utterly heart-broken to wake up on Friday morning to the end of the country we love to know that Scots would no longer join with the English, Welsh and Northern Irish in our Army, Navy and Air Force.. in our UK-wide celebrations and commemorations, in UK sporting teams from the Olympics to the British Lions.

The United Kingdom would be no more. No UK pensions, no UK passports, no UK pound.

The greatest example of democracy the world has ever known, of openness of people of different nationalities and faiths coming together as one, would be no more.

It would be the end of a country that launched the Enlightenment, that abolished slavery that drove the industrial revolution, that defeated fascism...

The end of a country that people around the world respect and admire the end of a country that all of us call home.

And we built this home together.

It’s only become Great Britain because of the greatness of Scotland. Because of the thinkers, writers, artists, leaders, soldiers, inventors who have made this country what it is.

It’s Alexander Fleming and David Hume; J.K. Rowling and Andy Murray and all the millions of people who have played their part in this extraordinary success story... the Scots who led the charge on pensions and the NHS and on social justice.

We did all this together. For the people of Scotland to walk away now would be like painstakingly building a home – and then walking out the door and throwing away the keys.

So I would say to everyone voting on Thursday, please remember. This isn’t just any old country. This is the United Kingdom. This is our country. And you know what makes us truly great?

It’s not our economic might or military prowess – it’s our values. British values. Fairness. Freedom. Justice.

The values that say wherever you are, whoever you are, your life has dignity and worth.

The values that say we don’t walk on by when people are sick that we don’t ask for your credit card in the hospital that we don’t turn our backs when you get old and frail. That we don’t turn a blind eye or a cold heart to people around the world who are desperate and crying out for help.

This is what Britain means. This is what makes us the greatest country on earth.

And it’s why millions of us could not bear to see that country ending – for good, for ever – on Friday.

Now I know that there are many people across Scotland who are planning to vote Yes.

I understand why this might sound appealing.

It’s the promise of something different.

I also know that the people who are running the Yes campaign are painting a picture of a

Scotland that is better in every way, and they can be good at painting that picture.

But when something looks too good to be true – that’s usually because it is. And it is my duty to be clear about the likely consequences of a Yes Vote.

Independence would not be a trial separation. It would be a painful divorce. And as Prime Minister I have to tell you what that would mean. It would mean we no longer share the same currency.

It would mean the armed forces we have built up together over centuries being split up forever.

It would mean our pension funds sliced up – at some cost.

It would mean the borders we have would become international and may no longer be so easily crossed.

It would mean the automatic support that you currently get from British embassies when you’re travelling around the world would come to an end.

It would mean over half of Scottish mortgages suddenly, from one day to the next, being provided by banks in a foreign country.

It would mean that interest rates in Scotland are no longer set by the Bank of England – with the stability and security that promises.

It would mean - for any banks that remain in Scotland – if they ever got in trouble it would be Scottish taxpayers and Scottish taxpayers alone that would bear the costs.

It would mean that we no longer pool resources across the whole of the UK to pay for institutions like the NHS or our welfare system.

This is not guesswork. There are no question marks, no maybe this or maybe that.

The Nationalists want to break up UK funding on pensions, the UK funding of healthcare, the UK funding and comprehensive protection on national security.

These are the facts. This is what would happen. An end to the things we share together.

And the people of Scotland must know these facts before they make this once-and-for-all decision.

To warn of the consequences is not to scare-monger, it is like warning a friend about a decision they might take that will affect the rest of their lives – and the lives of their children.

I say all this because I don’t want the people of Scotland to be sold a dream that disappears.

Now I know that some people say: we’ve heard about the risks and the uncertainties... but we still want change.

Look. The United Kingdom is not a perfect country - no country is. Of course we must constantly change and improve people’s lives.

No-one is content while there are still children living in poverty.

No-one is content while there are people struggling, and young people not reaching their potential.

Yes, every political party is different. But we are all of us – Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Nationalists – on a constant mission to change our country for the better.

The question is: how do you get that change?

For me it’s simple. You don’t get the change you want by ripping your country apart.

You don’t get change by undermining your economy and damaging your businesses and diminishing your place in the world.

But you can get real, concrete change on Thursday: if you vote No.

'Business as usual’ is not on the ballot paper. The status quo is gone. This campaign has swept it away.

There is no going back to the way things were. A vote for No means real change.

And we have spelled that change out in practical terms, with a plan and a process.

If we get a No vote on Thursday, that will trigger a major, unprecedented programme of devolution with additional powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Major new powers over tax, spending and welfare services. We have agreed a timetable for that stronger Scottish Parliament: a time-table to bring in the new powers that will go ahead if there is a No vote a White Paper by November, put into draft legislation by January.

This is a timetable that is now agreed by all the main political parties and set in stone and I am prepared to work with all the main parties to deliver this during 2015.

So a No vote actually means faster, fairer, safer and better change.

And this is a vital point: Scotland is not an observer in the affairs of this country.

Scotland is shaping and changing the United Kingdom for the better – more so today than at any point in the last three hundred years and will continue to help shape the constitution of our country.

And Scottish people can enjoy the additional powers its Parliament gives without losing the UK pension, the UK pound or the UK passport.

Real change is Scotland’s for the taking.

The power to set your own course and make your own decisions, with the security of being in the UK,without the risks of going it alone.

It’s the best of both worlds. Scotland’s identity is already strong, strong Scottish culture, strong Scottish arts, a strong Church of Scotland, and in the last 15 years you have built a strong Scottish Parliament, not a fleeting institution but a permanent one.

So the vote on Thursday is not about whether Scotland is a nation. Scotland is a proud, strong, successful nation. The vote on Thursday is about two competing visions for Scotland’s future.

The Nationalists’ vision of narrowing down, going it alone, breaking all ties with the UK.

Or the patriotic vision of a strong Scottish nation allied to the rest of the United Kingdom with its own stronger Scottish Parliament at its heart and with the benefits of working together in the UK on jobs, pensions, healthcare funding, the currency, interest rates.

It really is the best of both worlds and it’s the best way to get real change and secure a better future for your children and grandchildren.

And speaking of family – that is quite simply how I feel about this.

We are a family. The United Kingdom is not one nation.

We are four nations in a single country.

That can be difficult but it is wonderful.

Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, different nations, with individual identities competing with each other even at times enraging each other, while still being so much stronger together.

We are a family of nations. Why should the next generation of that family be forced to choose whether to identify only with Edinburgh or only with London, choose which embassy they want to go to when they are in trouble abroad, or pack their passport when they're going to see friends and loved ones.

A family is not a compromise, or a second best, it is a magical identity, that makes us more together than we can ever be apart so please – do not break this family apart.

In human relations it’s almost never a good thing to turn away from each other, put up walls, score new lines on the map.

Why would we take one Great Britain and turn it into separate smaller nations?

What is that an answer to?

How will that help the ambitious young people who want to make their mark on the world, or the pensioner who just wants security, or the family relying on jobs make in the UK?

Let no-one fool you that ‘Yes’ is a positive vision.

It's about dividing people, closing doors, making foreigners of our friends and family.

This isn’t an optimistic vision.

The optimistic vision is of our family of nations staying together, there for each other in the hard times, coming through to better times.

We’ve just pulled through a great recession together. We’re moving forward together.

The road has been long but it is finally leading upwards, and that’s why I ask you to vote No to walking away.

Vote No – and you are voting for a bigger and broader and better future for Scotland, and you are investing in the future for your children and grandchildren.

So this is our message to the people of Scotland. We want you to stay.

Head and heart and soul, we want you to stay. Please: don’t mix up the temporary and the permanent.

Don’t think: I’m frustrated with politics right now, so I’ll walk out the door and never come back.

If you don’t like me – I won’t be here forever.

If you don’t like this Government – it won’t last forever.

But if you leave the UK – that will be forever.

Yes, the different parts of the UK don’t always see eye-to-eye.

Yes, we need change – and we will deliver it.

But to get that change, to get a brighter future, we don’t need to tear our country apart.

In two days, this long campaign will be at an end.

And as you stand in the stillness of the polling booth, I hope you will ask yourself this.

Will my family and I truly be better off by going it alone?

Will we really be more safe and secure?

Do I really want to turn my back on the rest of Britain, and why is it that so many people across the world are asking: why would Scotland want to do that? Why?

And if you don’t know the answer to these questions – then vote No.

At the end of the day, all the arguments of this campaign can be reduced to a single fact.

We are better together.

So as you reach your final decision, please:

Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t be a proud Scot and a proud Brit.

Don’t lose faith in what this country is – and what we can be.

Don’t forget what a great United Kingdom you are part of.

Don't turn your backs on what is the best family of nations in the world and the best hope for your family in this world.

So please, from all of us: Vote to stick together... Vote to stay...

...Vote to save our United Kingdom.