Craig Murray on unilateral independence

voiceofourown · Craig Murray on unilateral independence

February 17, 2008
Kosovan Independence

Morph

would any agreement on Berwick not include an agreement on the oil rights? I can imagine that the English government would want to lose any of this area

Lewis

The chances of Berwick becoming Scottish again is very slim. if Berwick were to join Scotland because "we owned it first" then why don't we give the Falklands to Spain, half of Poland to Germany and give Orkney back to Norway?

I've seen the main reasons people feel as if they are now Scottish, and I don't think they are to do with discrimination or a sense of patriotism. It seems that about 29% of Berwickers like the idea of the benefits of being in Scotland.

Aventinian

The international legal position is clear, Kosovo demonstrates nothing apart from, perhaps, if you have the support of the major players that breaking international law to fix a tricky situation becomes possible. But, to be fair, that's always been well known.

For one, Kosovo was subject to war, ethnic discrimination etc. While I can perhaps understand secession to a limited degree in these circumstances, at least academically, I certainly do not support the Kosovo secession. If anything, it deepens and entrenches division and simply changes a population balance to suit different interests.

This is certainly not 'self-determination'.

azzuri

voiceofourown

Thought you might chip in Ave. I'm certainly glad to hear that your objection to secession is tempered somewhat by prevailing circumstances. My Scottish nationalism is similarly pragmatic and certainly not, unlike Kosovon independence, ethnically defined.
Question is, who or what decides where the lines are drawn? what levels and kinds of abuse/ coercion is acceptable to hold together a convenient demography ? Apparently the 'major players' (in their impartial, self-less way) decide.
One thing that does becomes very apparent when multi-nation states break down is who exactly was controlling and benefitting from the old arrangement. It's clear that Yugoslavia was simply Greater Serbia in all but name. Much as it is clear that the USSR was Greater Russia. The ruling class of both was composed largely of the establishment of the dominant nation and those who had joined the club. Like the Roman empire, 'unions' such as these are usually held together by the local 'clientelé'.
Tangentially, I remember reading the observations of a Roman historian based in Britain which made clear his amusement that many of the local big-wigs took great pride in their fluency in Latin and their apeing of Roman customs - "so much more refined dahling" and couldn't see it was the lynch pin of the system which cemented the status of the locals as an underclass.
This type of cultural imperialism is necessarily far more subtle in a modern quasi-democratic state like the UK - but it is still as pernicious as ever.
In many ways, things would have been better if the memory of Scotland and the concommitant national identity that has persisited, had been totally obliterated. However, there's no going back and that's simply NOT going to happen now. In the absence of a true national narrative, myth and legend will create a continuum. Slights, real or imagined, will continue to aggravate and, with the ever more centralised nature of the UK, there will be much to nurture a sense of alienation.
The momentum is increasing and it's only going to go in one direction whatever the establishment and it's hangers-on do.
Sooner or later, Scotland is leaving the UK. Question is, will the UK establishment, like many other ruling elites, pursue the errant fragments of it's empire?

RadgeJougal

Dave Coull

Voice of Our Own wrote

“It's clear that Yugoslavia was simply Greater Serbia in all but name” - no, that is far from clear. The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (which could be described as Serb-dominated) ceased to exist in WW2, mainly because the royalists proved so totally useless at opposing the Nazis. The force which emerged victorious from WW2 were Tito’s communist partisans, who had fought an extremely effective war, with some help from Britain, against both the Germans and their local allies, such as the Ustashe of the “Free State of Croatia”. That was when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia came into being. The boundaries of the federal republics were drawn by Tito. No, he did NOT draw these boundaries to favour Serbia. Tito himself was half Croat and half Slovene, and he was well aware of the need to keep Serbia from dominating. That is why he included large areas of Serb lands in Croatia and Bosnia, and why he decreed that there should be a province of Kosovo with an Albanian majority.

Voice of Our Own asked “who or what decides where the lines are drawn?"

In the case of Yugoslavia, Marshall Tito drew the lines. A more sensible approach is that of self-determination. Generally speaking, where there is any dispute, it should be a matter for the self-determination of those actually living in an area to decide what nationality they are. This should be so even if it only involves a few thousand people. In the case of the few thousand people of the Malvinas/Falklands, although these islands were much nearer to Argentina, Maggie Thatcher insisted “the wishes of the islanders must be paramount”. In the case of Scotland, we are in the extremely fortunate position of having no problems over the drawing of lines. There is no part of Scotland which is claimed by any other nationality, and there is no dispute about our border with England. True, there has been some hot air about Berwick recently, particularly from a publicity-seeking Liberal-Democrat MSP, but as Alex Salmond says, Scotland has no claim against any of the neighbours. If there is any genuine desire for self-determination on the part of the citizens of Berwick, it is up to them to campaign for this, and if there is any real desire amongst them to be part of an independent Scotland, then let them organise a referendum to prove this. AFTER Scotland has itself exercised the right of self-determination through a referendum on independence.

Voice of Our Own also wrote "Sooner or later, Scotland is leaving the UK" - on that, at least, we are in agreement. My bet is on "sooner".

Dave Coull

“Voice of Our Own”, apparently quoting Craig Murray, wrote “the citizens of Berwick Upon Tweed allegedly wish to rejoin Scotland, according to an opinion poll. Of course they are Scottish”,

Why “of course”?

There is no “of course” about it.

Self-determination would involve a properly conducted referendum. What’s more, given that we are demanding a referendum on independence here in Scotland, what the self-determination referendum for the citizens of Berwick really ought to ask is “Do you want to be part of an INDEPENDENT Scotland?”

So far, all we have had is a couple of dodgy opinion polls (one of them involving one person in ten of Berwick’s population) which took no account of Scotland’s approaching independence, and in which the main issue appeared to be the better NHS and better education system under a devolved Scottish Parliament within the UK.

In these badly-conducted polls a majority allegedly favoured being “Scottish”. On the other hand, during the World Cup, about 90 per cent of the houses and cars in Berwick were displaying St George's Cross flags. I am not aware of any "Scottish" town of which this was true!

If there are folk in Berwick who genuinely have a strong desire to be included in an independent Scotland, then let them campaign for this. Let them demand their self-determination. But for many of us, this renewed controversy about Berwick is a distraction, being peddled by Liberal Democrat MSPs and other unionists for unionist ends (as well as by those who are unwittingly serving unionist ends). The really important issue of self-determination for the people of Scotland is the demand for a referendum on independence for Scotland, to be held within the present borders of Scotland, and in which everybody on the electoral roll in Scotland can vote either "yes" or "no".

voiceofourown

Hi Dave, you raise some very interesting points. I am familiar with the basics of the formation of Yugoslavia and concede that it certainly wasn't designed by Tito as a 'Greater Serbia'. However, that is what it had, in effect, become. Perhaps inevitably so.

Re Craig Murray's contention that the good citizens of Berwick are 'of course' Scottish. I certainly share your misgivings about that and about the 'poll'.

Holebender

Interesting article and readers' discussion.

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/...ning-over-independence.3823891.jp