| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Zed |
Holyrood and the Search for Scotland's SoulCould be an interesting programme
Holyrood and the Search for Scotland's Soul http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lk6zb Sunday 28th June, 22:20 on BBC One It has been ten years since Scotland got its parliament back. A nationalist government in Edinburgh is planning a referendum on independence. Will that happen? Or are we now seeing the settled state of the union? BBC Scotland's Political Editor Brian Taylor argues that the parliament came about to recognise a separate Scottish identity; that Scots felt different to the rest of the country, and wanted that reflected in their politics. But has Holyrood satisfied that need, or is more change needed? Including interviews with Alex Salmond, David Cameron, Gordon Brown and the man who delivered devolution, Tony Blair, the film asks: how did we get here? And where are we going next? |
||||||||
| Zed |
And another !
Panorama Monday 29th June, 20:30 on BBC One Ten years after devolution the Scots want still more power concentrated north of the border, and the Scottish Nationalists want to force a referendum on independence. Can the UK be kept in one piece, and if the Scots left would the rest of the country miss them? Panorama talks to the people who could hold the fate of Scotland and the union in their hands, from Alex Salmond to Gordon Brown to David Cameron, and to Tony Blair, the man who began it all by giving the Scots their Parliament. |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
Only the BBC would describe a government honouring a manifesto commitment with the word "force" 
|
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
What an idiotic thing to say! If this is the standard of BBC journalism, the programme won't be worth watching. No one person "began" the devolution process, least of all Tony Blair. Some of us had been pushing for a Scottish Parliament for some time before Tony Blair jumped on the bandwaggon. He didn't "begin" anything. He INHERITED a commitment to legislating for a Scottish parliament, a commitment he was unable to get out of. Blair took over as Labour leader after the previous leader, who had taken to climbing Scottish mountains, died suddenly of a heart attack, and was buried in the graveyard of kings on Iona, almost as if he was a saint. In the circumstances, Tony just didn't have enough power to ditch John Smith's policy. |
||||||||
| Zed |
The Big Debate - Devolution 10 Years On
BBC Scotland Wednesday 1st July 22.45 Glenn Campbell hosts a debate on the future of Scotland with leading politicians in front of a live audience. |
||||||||
| George |
I don't trust the BBC in handling these debates, particularly Glenn Campbell. I understand that Brian Taylor is hosting a similar programme on Radio Scotland on Wednesday lunchtime. The BBC appear to be trying to frame constitutional discussion within the confines of devolution, a kind of Calman - the TV series. |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
I'm not sure I agree with that, possibly with the tele thing (I don't watch tele), but the radiopreview for BT's show sound fairly broad and seem to be looking at the question of independence too. |
||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Here are a couple of snippets from the forthcoming programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8122065.stm All fairly predictable I'm afraid. |
||||||||
| Cruachan |
Agreed, though this is potentially interesting.... Mr Cameron said he would respect the right of the Scottish Parliament to rule on domestic matters in Scotland if he became prime minister. In return, he would want the Scottish National Party to accept his mandate to decide on issues such as defence which affect the whole of the UK Am I reading too much into this, or is this a nod to a potential "Calman-plus" approach under PM Cameron? If he means ALL domestic matters that suggests social security and possible fiscal autonomy. It would be independence-lite, but maybe a price worth paying for the costs of Scotland's share of the bloated UK defence budget and MI5. Of course if we get the Referendum in 2010, we get a "Yes" vote, and what Mr Cameron does, and does not, want is all rather irrelevant. 
|
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
In other words he's not going to risk open warfare on the streets of Scotland by shutting down Holyrood, but please could we still do as we're told? |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Hahaha. |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
Chortle chortle, guffaw guffaw. Please try to be more imaginative with your laughter onomatopoeia. That way we might think you actually gave your post some thought. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Although it would be impossible to prove this, a couple of historical examples should give food for thought. The first is Ireland in 1916. Ireland was a country which had in effect been promised Home Rule. The only thing which delayed Home Rule was the onset of a World War, but there was no reason to think the Liberal Government and the Westminster Parliament would not proceed with Home Rule for Ireland after the war. During the First World War, about 200,000 Irishmen volunteered for the British forces. (There was no conscription). The majority of that 200,000 were Catholics, and the majority of them of them did not come from Ulster. Nevertheless, in 1916, a tiny minority of Irishmen, comprising an odd and uneasy alliance between Nationalist extremists and syndicalist workers, launched a rebellion on the streets of Dublin. The great majority of Dubliners opposed them, and the great majority of Dubliners were, to begin with, glad when the rebellion was suppressed. But the repression which followed changed the rebels from "nutcases" to "martyrs", and, before too long, practically everybody in Dublin was claiming that they had favoured the Rising all along. We are still living with the consequences of that to this day. What this shows is that even WITHOUT the support of the vast majority of folk, open warfare on the streets is a possibility. What's more, once you actually do have open warfare on the streets, even if, initially, the rebels lack support, and the rebellion is suppressed, things are unlikely ever to be quite the same as before ever again. My other example from history is General Franco's attempted coup d'etat in Spain. He and his colleagues thought they could abolish the Republic without great difficulty. They most certainly did NOT expect they would have to fight a prolonged civil war. But where they miscalculated was in thinking that their main opponents would be the Republican government and the political parties which composed that government and such forces as they could command. As it turned out, that was a BIG miscalculation. A lot of people who had no great faith in the Government of the Republic as such nevertheless reacted to the attempt at arbitrarily ABOLISHING the Republic by taking to the streets. If anybody had said, before 1916, that open warfare on the streets of Dublin was a possibility, the reaction of most folk would have been "Ha ha ha". If anybody had told Franco before 1936 that abolishing the Republic (which he had reason to believe was unpopular) would mean he would have to fight a prolonged civil war in which more than a million people would die, he wouldn't have believed them. Now, Scotland isn't Ireland, and it isn't Spain. There's not going to be open warfare on the streets of Scotland. But the REASONS why there won't be open warfare on the streets of Scotland are that most Scottish Nationalists have no desire to imitate Ireland's 20th century bloody history, and also because David Cameron isn't as stupid as General Franco, and he won't create the conditions which would make open warfare possible. |
||||||||
| magister ludi |
[quote="Cruachan"]
Agreed, though this is potentially interesting.... Mr Cameron said he would respect the right of the Scottish Parliament to rule on domestic matters in Scotland if he became prime minister. In return, he would want the Scottish National Party to accept his mandate to decide on issues such as defence which affect the whole of the UK Re Cruachan's post and his reference to david cameron's suggestion about the SNP accepting his mandate ( eh?) to decide on issues such as defence... If I was being cynical I might ask why not just cut out the middle-man and go straight to Pres Obama, but more seriously, why couldn't Scotlands defence be secured by it being an independent ( and contributing) member of various alliances including say NATO? In that way Scotland would not only be contributing to their own defence but to that of their allies and neighbours. |
||||||||
| George |
The Panorama programme is to be an edited version of 'Holyrood and the Search for Scotland's Soul' for a UK audience. It will be interesting to find out what parts have been removed for the rest of the UK. | ||||||||
| wisnaeme |
That's interesting George, I think I'll view both programmes with that in mind.
Good post, Dave Coull. But isn't Cameron just a pawn in the hands of the movers and shakers? ... and what would it take for the "vested interest" decision makers to acquiesce and influence Cameron and co to be nice, ...and be reasonable in an rearraignment of power distribution in favour of strengthening the Scottish government position at Westmidden's expense? I think the 'old guard' will be reluctant to choose that route without some serious arm twisting and incentives for them to be persuaded in going down that road. After all despite all the "goodwill" from Westmidden in condescending to devolve power away from the place that matters. They also tried to hamstring that gift to the Scottish people by chaining it to a secure leash. ...and tried to discredit the devolved process by the procedure of," If we must have this abortion thrust apon us, then why don't we make a profit out of it and discredit it by way of the parly building procurement." . |
||||||||
| Cruachan |
Well, I can hardly believe I wasted an hour of my life watching this drivel.
As fascinating as it is to see Brian Taylor giving out Tunnocks Caramel and wearing the kilt, this was really very poor. Presumably the edited UK version will be much the same, though thankfully shorter. 
On the plus side Brian got a free trip to Texas at our expense. 
|
||||||||
| George |
Yes, very disappointing. The table stunt at the start was just embarassing as was the trip to Texas to visit 'Brigadoon y'all'.
A subtle message that we can still be Scottish and remain in the Union, but thankfully no over the top propaganda. The tired old phrases were there though, 'seperatists', 'breaking up Britain' along with the subsidy junkie myth - but all in all not very informative. In fact it was probably a complete waste of money, especially the two trips (Norway and Texas). The TV doesn't like Gordon Brown at all, he appeared genuinely grumpy and irritated. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
But as for Texas!!!!!!! What idiot came up with THAT one??????!!!!!!! Texas is NOT an ancient nation. It belonged first to the Native-Americans (Red Injuns), then to the Spanish, then it was a Province of independent Mexico. Then some Americans started emigrating to Texas - for instance, Steven F. Austin, from Virginia, after whom the state capital is named; Sam Houston, after whom the big city of Houston is named, also emigrated from Virginia, and like Austin he became a Mexican citizen. Later, Houston became President of the Republic of Texas, then Senator, then Governor. To begin with, the Americans who emigrated to Texas, like both Austin and Houston, all swore loyalty to Mexico. What changed that was that Mexico ABOLISHED SLAVERY. After Mexico abolished slavery, the Texan-White-Americans wanted to join the USA. (The Red Injuns didn't, the Texan-Mexicans didn't, and of course nobody asked the Texan blacks, but presumably they would rather have stayed with Mexico which had abolished slavery). Texas only became independent by accident. Although the USA supported them breaking away from Mexico, they wouldn't let Texas join the USA. At that time, the number of slave states and the number of "free" states was finely balanced, and the northern and western "free" states didn't want to admit another slave state. What finally led to Texas being admitted to the USA was that the Texans opened an embassy in London and had tentative discussions with the UK about the possibility of becoming a British "protectorate". The threat of having the British Empire on BOTH the USA's northern AND its southern border got Texas admitted. Then the USA had another war with Mexico and annexed California as a "free" state, thus keeping the balance between "slave" and "free" states for a few more years, until the American Civil War broke out. Texas, of course, was part of the Confederacy. So, Texas does NOT have a long history as an independent nation, Texas never even wanted to be an independent nation, they wanted to be part of the USA but a USA which allowed slavery Not a hint of any of this from Brian Taylor. The comparison of Scotland with Norway makes a lot of sense for reasons already given. The comparison with Texas, which had a brief period of independence more by accident than by the desire of any part of its population, makes little sense. I suppose the programme makers felt they had to "balance" Brian's trip to Norway with a trip to a "country" which was happy with "devolution". But if they had made a comparison with Catalonia, for instance, they would have found some folk who accept the present situation, and some who don't. The only place they could find where nearly everybody accepts being part of a bigger whole was a place with no real history as a "nation" in the first place. That is why Brian got to put on his stetson and present a potted history of a Texas which never existed outside of the most simple-minded of cowboy films. |
||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Agree with the above. There was nothing really informative about it.
The whole programme seemed to be asking the wrong question to begin with. In it, he was constantly asking about Scotland's identity and how that would be affected by independence. But independence is a lot more than identity. It is about taking ownership of our own destiny, rather than it being dictated to us from London. |
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
I have this on iPlayer. Should I bother watching it or will it be an hour of my life I want back? | ||||||||
| wisnaeme |
Cheer up lads and lassies. Although those offers were mince on Wednesday at 9pm, Eorpa, ten years of devolution is on the minority channel, BBC Alba.
Ok, we can't all get it but maybe it will be on the BBC player. Eorpa in the past has had a pretty good reputation for it's programme content. Even if subtitled. |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
I was also going to watch this on the i-player. really don't think I'll bother now! |
||||||||
| Cruachan |
Yes , if only to remind yourself what political documentaries/comment pieces should NOT be like! |
||||||||
| Holebender |
I recorded it, but I'm not sure if I'll bother with it now.
BBC Alba sounds like a better bet. When is it on? Or have I already missed it? |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Watched. Hardly riveting stuff. The interviews established nothing of interest. Gave too much time to discussing Scottish independence. | ||||||||
| magister ludi |
I agree, Aventinian, the time for talking is over |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Come again? You're not planning on organising a Rising or something, are you? |
||||||||
| magister ludi |
No need, Aventinian, we live in a democracy with free and fair elections, and of course we have been promised a referendum . So it'll just be case of determining the "settled will of the scottish electorate"......and plain sailing from there on in I would have thought. | ||||||||
| Red Justice |
I do not see Scotland in terms of a democracy besides it takes a lot of money to fight a political campaign with the large mainstream parties getting the lionshare of media coverage during elections.
The will of the Scottish people for a referendum does exist but the SNP cannot guarantee their referendum bill will get safe passage through Holyrood. Saying that I hope we do get an independence referendum. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
Hmm, then why should Watford be dictated to from London? Why should Reading? Why anywhere? You at least have the advantage that the main movers and shakers there are from Scotland. Doesn't get mentioned much by naitonalists. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
Tony Blair - "an Englishman born in Scotland" WHAT? What a farce. He was born in Scotland, to an adoptive Scottish father and a Scottish mother, studied in Edinburgh and he is somehow "English".
He even describes his politics as "probably pretty unionist" How convincing. Tony is Scots and what's more, a Scots nationalist. |
||||||||
| Zed |
Watford and Reading are in England 
As a Scots nationalist I'm not concerned what happens in England unless it affects Scotland. That's not being anti-English, I say that because as a Scot it's not really any of my business what happens in England or in any other country for that matter. |
||||||||
| Zed |
Now you are being ridiculous. |
||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Who said anything about Watford and Reading? But I agree. The further power is devolved can only be a good thing. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
OK. Why should Aberdeen be dictated to from Edinburgh? Or Shetland? How far is it gonna go this search for "independence"? | ||||||||
| Holebender |
This seems like a very odd argument from a self-declared supporter of Northumbrian independence. You have obviously not thought through your arguments, or you are a wind-up merchant. If you continue in this vein I'll reassess you as a troll. | ||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Strange. He enthusiastially supported the England football team, and called it "our" team. I'm not aware of many Scots doing that.
You do realise, Luke, that if you got what you CLAIM you want, "Northumbrian independence", you would be stuck with Tony Blair? As a youngster, he attended Durham Cathedral Choristers School. Until recently, he was the MP for a constituency in County Durham, which is definitely in Northumbria. He has never represented a Scottish constituency. As an ex-Prime Minister, he is, of course, entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. He will get to choose his own title. How does "Lord Northumbria" sound? I bet it sounds good to Tony Blair. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
Well, how many Englishmen are born in Scotland to Scottish parents?????Sounds a fairly Scottish situation to me. Tony worked on the accent a bit, of course, to wow that 78% of the electorate south of the Tweed because what Labour was intending was fairly radical. There was a study performed that showed Brown was "too Scottish" to win an election apparently.
The farce of it all is the simple fact that Tony Blair is British, and that as a people we only had to accept a unifying British identity for it all to work. The ingredients are certainly there. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
Now wouldn't that be nice! The only problem with your theory is that fewer and fewer people every day are accepting "a unifying British identity". In fact, more and more of us see British identity as divisive and want no more to do with it. The sooner we can all be good neighbours looking after our own interests the better for all of us.
The union is dying. Give it up. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
It is certainly time to *** or get off the pot. There is an alternative - a better union.
I agree the British identity is losing currency but this is a natural product of separatism and devolution. It has been intended that way, as in case you haven't noticed, similar things are happening in other states of Europe and practically all of these movements began with the EEC. They have been very keen on promoting them, to further the superstate's ambitions. And if they hadn't I doubt very much you would have the ideas you have, nor would we be here discussing this. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
as well as being a self-confessed LIAR , you're also a bit of a prat. I've been a supporter of independence for Scotland since I was ten years old. The EEC didn't even exist then. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
Save the slurs. The EEC made devolution and separatism possible. The EU pours money into minority languages (I don't oppose this by the way) and cultural programmes. It admits its intention has always been a superstate after lying about it for decades.
The fundamental point is this, and always this Dave - Scottish independence is the LIE. It is an illusion, a myth, a non-reality, a fiction, a farce, a fiasco. Within the EU there is nothing but shrinking and shrinking autonomy, increasing and inexorable centralisation - all the things I suppose you hate about London and the hateful evil English b***ards that robbed y'all. No amount of kilts (Norse by the way) and tartan (English by the way) and bagpipes (probably English but other origins possible) will change that. Do you not see the contradiction that whilst supporting minority cultures and languages the open border policy is encouraging mass migration and dilution of nationalities. It does not add up. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
I have been contacted privately by one of the moderators of Our Scotland, about my language with regard to Luke P.
(1) Luke P did tell a lie. He even admitted as much. He claimed to be a supporter of Northumbrian Nationalism, then later admitted this was not true. (2) Some of the assumptions Luke P makes about other people are indeed both ignorant and bigoted. (3) In my opinion, the only way to enforce the kind of strict controls on migration that Luke P appears to want would be through something like a police state. I realise other people may not agree, but, nevertheless, from my point of view, that does make him "authoritarian". (4) The kind of strict controls on migration Luke P appears to want do appear to me to be "racist", as well as "authoritarian". I realise not everybody will agree, but I can't withdraw my honest opinion, even if it should be a minority opinion. (5) The only bit of what I said which I now think was unjustifiable is the word "prick". That was just abuse, which I regret and withdraw. |
||||||||
| George |
If only Luke's father had withdrawn his own. 
|
||||||||
| Lord Pitsligo |
Why did I just think of Darth Vader? |
||||||||
| Fidget |
Yes. It would be farewell and good luck to Scotland, from the remaining constituent parts of the UK. The UK only exists because of Ireland. Not because of Scotland. Scotland and England united to form Great Britain, not The United Kindom. The UK happened when Ireland joined. |
||||||||
| Holebender |
Rubbish! The UK was formed when two separate kingdoms (England and Scotland) combined to form a single, united, kingdom. The United Kingdom of Great Britain became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and then, later, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. | ||||||||
| Aventinian |
There is some dispute over what the proper name of the British state was before 1801. The 1707 Act of Union refers to the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain' , but various Acts of Parliament and other documents refer to the Kingdom of Great Britain. It has been posited by several historians that the 'United' part was simply descriptive rather than an indivisible part of the name of the state. Personally I would say the practice of long-form titles of states is anachronistic to the period: when the long form is used, it is simply description rather than title. This would seem to be confirmed somewhat by Article 1 of the 1707 Act of Union, which states unequivocally that the state's name is to be 'Great Britain'. Not the K of GB, or the UK of GB, just GB. Either way, not really a matter worth getting one's knickers in a twist over. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
You can only form a united kingdom by uniting two or more kingdoms. Ireland wasn't a kingdom. The last person to be crowned King of Ireland was Edward Bruce, brother of King Robert 1st of Scotland, in 1315. Mind you, HIS kingship wasn't universally recognised. You have to go all the way back to Brian Boru, way back in 1014, to find a king of Ireland who was fairly generally recognised. So, if Ireland hadn't been a "Kingdom" for hundreds of years before 1801, how could there be a "United Kingdom"? Easy. Scotland was a kingdom, with its own monarchs, long after Ireland ceased to be one. The last king to rule over Scotland as a completely separate nation was King James the Sixth. James had been King of Scotland for THIRTY SIX YEARS before he became King of England as well, when Elizabeth the First died. Elizabeth was, of course, "The Virgin Queen". The present Queen Elizabeth is a descendant of the Stuart line of James the Sixth, and of his mother Mary Queen of Scots, and, indeed, she is also a descendant of Robert the Bruce, but she's not a descendant of Elizabeth the First. Even when James became King of England as well as of Scotland, Scotland still continued to be administered as a separate kingdom. That ended when the Scottish Parliament passed the Act of Union in 1707. THAT was what created the "United Kingdom", by amalgamating the two separate kingdoms of Scotland and England. However, although representatives of the Scottish Parliament may have, to some extent, been, in Robert Burns's words, "Bought and sold for English gold", they didn't give the English government everything they wanted. They negotiated certain conditions for the Union. These conditions included that Scotland would continue to have a separate national Church, separate laws, a separate legal system, and separate educational establishments. It was because of these continuing differences that, in the late 18th Century, folk in Scotland would still refer, not to "the UK", but to "these united kingdoms". Plural. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
The Irish aristocracy had English and Norman heritage. That does not make them any less Irish. Indeed, the English aristocracy were Norman, as was a good deal of the Scottish.
Well, no, a Kingdom can be created by mean other than uniting other kingdoms, and 'United' is just an adjective indicating it is unified, as one. But on your second point, the King (earlier, Lord) of Ireland was the same as the King of England since, I believe, Henry II. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
liar, ignorant bigot, authoritarian racist prick. Hmmm. Abuse is really a last refuge of a weak argument, but I hardly need say it. I do not support a police state. I do not know how you make the connection. The opposite is true - I oppose the EU which is taking ever more the shape of a police state. I have said nothing about my idea of migration controls. Before the EU opened the borders we were not living in police states were we? It's looking like it now... I made up the story about Northumbria to highlight some points. What it revealed is a good deal of hypocrisy within Scottish nationalism. My argument is simply based on the fact that I like Scotland and dislike the EU superstate. I think Britain is better together and independent. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
Thanks. I will pass on your comments if I ever meet him. Feel free to add the epithet "English b****d" if you haven't already, but he was Turkish and I'm also a quarter Irish (county Mayo, on my mother's side). |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
In late 2004 I was one of a small group of folk who decided to campaign for a referendum on independence for Scotland. Several of the group were strongly opposed to Scotland being in the EU. Some were both strongly opposed to the EU AND in favour of a republic. But it was decided that we should put all such questions to one side. We should concentrate on campaigning for a referendum on independence. AFTER independence we could have referendums on other important questions, such as, do we want to be in or out of the EU, and do we want to be a monarchy or a republic. For now, the priority had to be independence. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
That being so, as far as I'm concerned, your assurance that you are not in favour of a police state is the assurance of somebody who has been known to tell lies. You may or may not be telling the truth this time. As for calling you "ignorant", that has been clearly established. Mind you, there is no shame in ignorance as such, provided a person is willing to learn. But willful ignorance is shameful. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
Scotland's viability on its own is questionable but if they could pull it off, like I said elsewhere, I'd move there. I am not hearing any anti-EU rhetoric coming from Salmond et al however. And I very much doubt if the SNP could resist the EU food trough. I'd say the chances of an "independent" Scotland leaving the EU are between slim and none.
Tellingly EU membership is not on the agenda for a referendum is it? The EU aren't too fond of democracy as we well know. Please stop the slurs, it's just infantile. |
||||||||
| Shagpile |
GOTYA. It wasn't 'The Father of Scotland's' idea after all...... Britain had to introduce Devolution or fall foul to the Treaties Britain was signatory to.
Bring it on then; as Wendy once said. Up for it or chicken?
Don't fret...... The BNP are standing in the ex-Speakers seat..... register your X against his name.
|
||||||||
| Luke P |
You make me laugh. I can't mention the word "migration" without an ignorant tirade coming my way. You completely misunderstood my point - that the EU is both supporting nationalism and undermining it at the same time. It is a contradiction as fundamental as backing separatism and centralisation simultaneously.
Just for argument's sake my liberal nationalist friend, suppose 10 million Europeans decide to resettle in Scotland and outnumber you 2:1. Ok by you? |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||
| Luke P |
Very well Dave, don't take my word for anything. But do please go out and figure it out for yourself. | ||||||||
| Dave Coull |
And no matter how you may try to get around this, Scotland was an independent kingdom centuries after Ireland had ceased to be so. The first use of the term "United Kingdom" (or 'these united kingdoms', plural) referred to the union of Scotland and England. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Fine, but it completely undermines the point you were making.
It really depends how one defines independence. Ireland has a sovereign parliament up until 1801: the restrictions placed upon it were essentially self-imposed: it had voted for Poynings' Law which - for many years - subordinated it to the Parliament of England. However I believe the Parliament enjoyed complete legislative freedom following the constitutional changes of 1782. It was certainly independent: the only thing that then bound it to England was the shared monarch. As for the UK point, yes, you're right. |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Where'd you get that load of crap from? |
||||||||
| Shagpile |
And you make me yawn. So we're even. I guess you're 'chicken' when it comes to the referendum question. |
||||||||
| Shagpile |
Hi mate...... from here: http://www.realmofscotland.com/pa...iew_Scotland-UN-Papers.aspx?id=11
Good stuff eh? |
||||||||
| Luke P |
Don't quite follow you... I'm all for referenda. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Unlike your fellow Unionist, Aventinian, who is totally opposed to them. So, you're in favour of a referendum on independence for Scotland. And if you were living in Scotland, and if you were on the electoral register in Scotland, you would vote against independence in that referendum. That's fine. We just want the referendum. We don't expect to be able to convince everybody. Just the majority. |
||||||||
| Luke P |
Ideally that referendum would give Scots the chance to express their desire to remain within or without the EU. I don't think we have nearly enough referenda - especially THAT ONE promised by Labour. | ||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||
| babykitten |
As Dave Coull has already pointed out, that question will not be asked at the same time as the independence question. It is for asking later on. Referenda should be simple yes/no questions on a single issue. And I agree with you, that we don't have nearly enough referenda. This is something that I hope an independent Scotland would have more of. It is certainly not the way things are done in Westminster. Since referenda are usually on issues of national importance, and that those are mostly reserved matters for Westminster, then it is no surprise that there have been few (any?) referenda from the Scottish Parliament so far. |
||||||||
| mac |
Referenda, are an easy to follow benefitBK, I'm hoping that referenda ARE asked of Scottish citizens on issues of Scottish national importance - that would be a real good way of simply pointing out the advantage.
|
||||||||
| Aventinian |
When? Would Scotland join the EU - restoring it to its previous status as part of the EU - then ask the question? Or would it ask the question immediately after being independent, without acceding to the EU and as a non-member? |
||||||||