Split Thread Scottish Independence

[Rolfe]

You said you support independance which is about the rights of people to control their own resources and destiny. I am simply trying to find out if that it true. The fact is you refuse to accept that Shetlanders may feel that the politicians in their luxurious building in at Holyrood may have little understanding of island life. You will not even entertain the idea that they should be allowed to control their own resources and destiny. This tells me that your support for scottish independence in nothing to do with the intellectual principle of self governance but about money and oil.

Hey, where did I say that? I said no such thing.

I said it was about as constructive a debate as worrying about what we'd do if aliens stole the ballot papers.

The number of pointless hypotheticals in this thread is getting ridiculous. What if you held a referendum on independence and only three people voted? What if the Westminster government flooded Scotland with people from northern England so that only 50% of the people living in Scotland were Scots-born? What if continental drift speeded up and Scotland suddenly found itself somewhere south of Iceland?

I'm not required to hold an opinion on content-free hypotheticals designed either to derail the debate, or provide some sort of ridiculous reductio ad absurdum, or paint the argument into a corner. Your attempt to accuse me of things I most certainly didn't say because I refuse to play your silly game is duly noted.

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Speaking as an islander, I have to agree with the point re: alien abduction of ballot points being more likely than areas of Scotland seeking to remain in the UK following Scottish independence or even going their own way.

 

[funk de fino]

If you can't see my point after all this you are avoiding it or you are not very bright.

I may not be bright but at least I dont have to lie in my posts to make a point.

And yes, I am different than someone from England, France, Ireland, Wales etc etc.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe: I'm neutral on whether or not Scotland should get independence (not really something I should comment on, seeing as how I don't live in the UK) I just expect that London will attempt to do something about it.

Well, of course it's doing something about it. It's been doing it for the past 60 years. Naturally, London doesn't want to lose one of the last of the colonies, it doesn't want the perceived diminution on the international stage that would come with them really being England (as opposed to just saying England when they mean Britain), and they don't want to lose Scotland's natural resources.

They lie, they scare-monger, they gerrymander, they change the rules, and they mark reports showing how successful an independent Scotland would be "top secret" and then tell the Scots they'd be a failed state on a par with Biafra (which was the current international famine story at the time).

Right now they're busy ensuring that Scottish voters get wall-to-wall media coverage of the "big three" political parties and shoving the SNP into a media-silence box along with the BNP and UKIP.

They'll unblushingly argue in one breath that Scotland couldn't possibly support itself, and in the next that Scots surely wouldn't be so selfish as to want to remove their natural resources from the Union. They'll tell the Scots that they don't have people capable of governing a country, and five minutes later you hear them complain that three quarters of the cabinet are Scots and they're all ruled by Scots.

It's quite funny, in a way.

However, what they're unlikely to be able to do (though I expect they'll try), is to block independence after a properly-conducted democratic referendum on the subject. There have been too many categorical statements that of course the Scots can have independence if they want it (the strategy being to try to persuade them they don't want it, of course), and there is far too much recent precedent in Europe, for this to be a viable strategy.

Rolfe.

 

[funk de fino]

So if the british goverment decided that scotland was underpopulated and decided to adress the problem by encouraging mass migration from Yorkshire and the Humber to the point where about half the population of the country was born outside scotland you wouldn't have a problem with that?

For starters there are already many many people from the North of England up here. They also commute here for jobs in the North Sea. If we are part of the UK and the govt want to do this then crack on. Doesn't bother me.

 

[Rolfe]

To be successful Scottish nationalism have to keep immigration to a fairly low level (remeber the EU thinks the UK as a whole is due to pick up about 10 million immigrants which if evenly disributed would result in 830K more people in scotland with no reason to support scotish nationalism). While this does boil down to scotland for the scottish they are plently of ways to it without needing to resort to that phrasing.

That's not necessarily true. Consider what happened in Estonia. Russia really did do there what you frivolously suggested Westminster might do to Scotland. Large numbers of ethnic Russians were uprooted and settled in Estonia. They didn't even speak the language. The whole idea was to overwhelm and outvote the native Estonians. Didn't work.

There was some discussion about whether it was appropriate to allow the Russian immigrant minority to vote, or if this decision should be reserved exclusively for citizens of Estonia. In the end all major political parties backed the referendum, considering it most important to send a strong signal to the world. To further legitimise the vote, all residents of Estonia were allowed to participate. The result vindicated these decisions, as the referendum produced a strong endorsement for independence. Turnout was 82%, and 64% of all possible voters in the country backed independence, with only 17% against.

I see it quite markedly where I live now. There are a lot of English people in the village. My mother gets quite narked about it (having previously lived in a town where an English accent was an extreme rarity). I say, come on, I lived in England for 25 years, how would you have liked it if I'd been resented like that? Then I point out, they may be English, but their children are Scottish.

And they are.

Even in our own family, one of my mother's sisters married an Englishman. Her daughter is Mum's favourite niece. Although born in Scotland, she was brought up in Wimbledon, to the age of about 12 (when her father died and her widowed mother returned home). She still has a slight English accent, 50 years later. She married a Scotsman (who is an SNP member, by the way), but then their son married a woman from Northumberland. That couple lived in Northumberland for a while, and I think one of their daughters was born there. But they moved back home, and both daughters are Scots, and learning Gaelic at school. They're into sport (dinghy sailing), and represent Scotland at international level.

You could call them 3/4 English if you like, but they're Scottish.

You will be assimilated, BWAHAHAHAHA!

Rolfe.

 

[Lothian]

Hey, where did I say that? I said no such thing.

I said it was about as constructive a debate as worrying about what we'd do if aliens stole the ballot papers.

The number of pointless hypotheticals in this thread is getting ridiculous. What if you held a referendum on independence and only three people voted? What if the Westminster government flooded Scotland with people from northern England so that only 50% of the people living in Scotland were Scots-born? What if continental drift speeded up and Scotland suddenly found itself somewhere south of Iceland?

I'm not required to hold an opinion on content-free hypotheticals designed either to derail the debate, or provide some sort of ridiculous reductio ad absurdum, or paint the argument into a corner. Your attempt to accuse me of things I most certainly didn't say because I refuse to play your silly game is duly noted.

Rolfe.

If you think the example I gave makes your argument look absurd perhaps you understand my point.

If the reason Scotland should have independence is that people should have the right to control their own resources and destiny then that principle should apply to smaller groups should they want to take it up, however unlikely that scenario may be. That you don't appear to agree suggests that the principle is a red herring.

 

[mummymonkey]

Naturally, London doesn't want to lose one of the last of the colonies ...

Your use of "London" as a code name for England is noted. (See also Westminster, The South etc.) Why do you think England has colonised Scotland? Your comparison with Estonia is odd to say the least. Do you feel colonised? Oppressed in any way? What is it you feel unable to do that you will be able to do if the heading on the notepaper is changed? After all, we already have seperate laws, schools, media, etc etc. You can vote in Local, Scottish, General and European elections if you want. You can stand for election in all of those if you want. You can even become Prime Minister of The United Kingdom if you set your mind to it.

Why do you want to destroy my country? Take away part of my identity? What have I ever done to you?

 

[Morrigan]

I'm sorry, I couldn't be bothered to read all 8 pages, but are there really folks who think that non-Scots UK folks should be able to vote on Scottish independence? I mean... what? When Quebec tried to separate from Canada, we had a referendum. Only Québécois got to vote on it. Allowing the rest of Canada to vote on that issue would have been so utterly ridiculous.

I apologize if no one has actually suggested that, I don't want to misrepresent anyone.

(For the record I was too young to vote back then, but I would have voted No.)

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

..union. That is, you cannot unilaterally dissolve it. More strongly held here because of our Civil War.

 

[D'rok]

I'm sorry, I couldn't be bothered to read all 8 pages, but are there really folks who think that non-Scots UK folks should be able to vote on Scottish independence? I mean... what? When Quebec tried to separate from Canada, we had a referendum. Only Québécois got to vote on it. Allowing the rest of Canada to vote on that issue would have been so utterly ridiculous.

I apologize if no one has actually suggested that, I don't want to misrepresent anyone.

(For the record I was too young to vote back then, but I would have voted No.)

I agree. However, allowing Quebec to unilaterally secede based on that vote (if either of them had been successful), would also be utterly ridiculous. At that point, all of Canada has a legitimate stake in the outcome. Same goes for the UK if Scotland decides to secede.

 

[geni]

That's not necessarily true. Consider what happened in Estonia. Russia really did do there what you frivolously suggested Westminster might do to Scotland. Large numbers of ethnic Russians were uprooted and settled in Estonia. They didn't even speak the language. The whole idea was to overwhelm and outvote the native Estonians. Didn't work.

It appears to be working in western western sahara however (which is an another international situation we are hapily ignoring).

 

[Rolfe]

[....] I just expect that London will attempt to do something about it.

Your use of "London" as a code name for England is noted. (See also Westminster, The South etc.)

I merely followed Rika's usage, as I was replying to that post. What else should we call the Westminster parliament, to distinguish it from the Holyrood parliament? And I specifically don't refer to England, because England as a whole is not what I'm talking about. The Westminster political establishment is.

Why do you think England has colonised Scotland?

I don't think England has colonised Scotland. I think that the mindset of some of the Westminster establishment views Scotland as if it were a colonial possession.

Your comparison with Estonia is odd to say the least.

Why do you say that? It's a perfectly good example of a country which was subjected to deliberate colonisation to change the demographic, as in Geni's hypothetical, where it didn't work. I think it's a better comparison than western western Sahara, to be honest.

Do you feel colonised?

No, not really. You entirely misunderstood the intent of my post.

Oppressed in any way?

Not very, in the grand scheme of things.

What is it you feel unable to do that you will be able to do if the heading on the notepaper is changed? After all, we already have seperate laws, schools, media, etc etc. You can vote in Local, Scottish, General and European elections if you want. You can stand for election in all of those if you want. You can even become Prime Minister of The United Kingdom if you set your mind to it.

I can be part of a nation state, which is recognised internationally. I can see my country regain its prosperity and self-respect, and shake off the dependency and blame culture that has settled on it to a certain extent. I can know that it has control of its own assets, rather than see them appropriated by a neighbour, to be given back as pocket money (see "dependency culture").

I could go on but it's getting late.

Why do you want to destroy my country? Take away part of my identity? What have I ever done to you?

Why do you think I want to destroy "your" country?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

..union. That is, you cannot unilaterally dissolve it. More strongly held here because of our Civil War.

I agree. However, allowing Quebec to unilaterally secede based on that vote (if either of them had been successful), would also be utterly ridiculous. At that point, all of Canada has a legitimate stake in the outcome. Same goes for the UK if Scotland decides to secede.

Uh, I won't pontificate about Quebec, because I don't know enough about it. Scotland most certainly can initiate and accomplish the dissolution of the 1707 union if she wants to. Realpolitik dictates this could only be thwarted by dirty tricks, not by a legitimate veto.

I don't underestimate the probability of dirty tricks though, we've seen enough of them so far to get the general drift.

Rolfe.

 

[D'rok]

Uh, I won't pontificate about Quebec, because I don't know enough about it. Scotland most certainly can initiate and accomplish the dissolution of the 1707 union if she wants to. Realpolitik dictates this could only be thwarted by dirty tricks, not by a legitimate veto.

I don't underestimate the probability of dirty tricks though, we've seen enough of them so far to get the general drift.

Rolfe.

I'll let your English and Welsh brothers and sisters respond to that.

 

[Giz]

Why do you think I want to destroy "your" country?

Rolfe.

Because my country is the UK. I was born in the UK to a Scottish father and an English Mother. I am British, rather than MacNeill of the Hebrides (after all, why should the Western Isles be part of a Scotland dominated by lowland Scots? Those lowlanders are historically more culturally akin to Northern English than to the Highlanders and Islanders, pshaw I hear some lowlanders wear kilts as if they would have pre-1707!).

The UK has been one nation for centuries, it's tragic that an inferiority complex is pulling it apart now.

 

[Architect]

Giz

Mise ghaidhlig. Mise Albanach.

Architect.

 

[richardm]

Mise ghaidhlig. Mise Albanach.

That is still true even when you have an intact United Kingdom. I think what Giz is suggesting is that a native Hebridean probably doesn't have many more interests in common with the Metropolitan Kilterati Down South (in Edinburgh, that is) than he does with the current government, and is wondering, functionally speaking, what the difference would be.

Someone wondered what things would be like ten years down the line after Scottish independence. I predict that the first ten years will be spent blaming historic Westminster interference for all the problems. After the first ten years Labour will take over the reins, and then they can blame SNP misrule for all the problems. And so on, and so on.

Pretty much normal politics really

Edit: Independence will come at some point in the near future - I think once the wheels were allowed to turn towards devolution it became inevitable. I also think that, knowing politicians, the whole thing will be one hell of a stramash and I wonder if it will be worth it. We shall see, no doubt.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I don't think utopia exists. So anybody expecting anything much different from "normal politics" will be disappointed. In fact, "normal politics" is pretty much the goal, for all its faults.

I can't remember exactly how many countries have become independent since the start of the 20th century, but it's into 3 figures I think. I don't think there's a single one where the population now regrets the move, or would vote to re-form the previous union.

All this stuff about Shetland, and the Hebrides and so on is a bit of a red herring. News flash. Scotland is a country, with regions and counties and districts and three different bloody languages into the bargain. It's not a homogenous group of identical people living in identical circumstances. Just like everywhere else, really.

If any of these regions starts up an independence movement on its own, that will be a real situation with real pros and cons to consider. In the mean time, I can't see what any discussion of the Scottish equivalent of Passport to Pimlico brings to the table.

Rolfe.

 

[Lothian]

If any of these regions starts up an independence movement on its own, that will be a real situation with real pros and cons to consider.
Rolfe.

That is what I don't get. It seems that when it comes to Scotland it is not about the pros and cons but simply about the right of people to control their own resources and destiny....

While I don't agree with Scottish independence I think there should be a consistent agreed criteria for separation and if that test is passed then it is right that Scotland should get independence.

My concern is that you then appear to want to have a different test for the Islands once Scotland is independent. Rather than dismiss my concern as unrealistic you could simply say that I am wrong and you are happy for the islanders to have independence by passing the same 'test' as Scotland.