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.
|
Anthropos
|
Lessons from IrelandAt the weekend I saw the following letter in the Herald:
| Quote: |
Lesson from Ireland
AFTER part of Ireland became independent and free of Britain in the early part of the past century, there followed many decades of near-absolute poverty-level existence for a great many Irish people before, in time and with the help of the European Union, it became the eminently successful and thriving country it is today. Those Irish people who fought for their country's freedom made no bones about the difficulty of going it alone, but insisted that their cause was right and the sacrifice worth while.
Those promoting Scottish independence today should learn from this; claiming the break-up of the United Kingdom would not have a downward economic effect on a great many Scottish people is both dishonest and self-defeating. Many undecided on the matter must be dismayed at the SNP's absurd disclaimers every time an independent business or social expert gives a point of view contradicting its vision of a Scottish Utopia.
If breaking up the UK is worth while, then it should not matter that there will be an inevitable and heavy price to pay, as was the case with the Irish.
Alexander McKay, 8/7 New Cut Rigg, Edinburgh |
I was reminded of it as I read the Our Date With Destiny thread where fiferjohn stated "for Scotland as she is not an equal partner only a cash cow for westminster", but the economic benefits of separatism are often the basis of the pro argument which often reduces it to a practical rather than ideological argument.
Would people accept an independent Scotland if it was significantly poorer? The question is not aimed at forum users, I am think of the general public who will ultimately decide the outcome of such matters.
|
Economist
|
| Anthropos wrote: | | Would people accept an independent Scotland if it was significantly poorer? The question is not aimed at forum users, I am think of the general public who will ultimately decide the outcome of such matters. |
As regards the letter, maybe the reason Ireland endured many years of poverty as an independent nation, was due to the fact it was (a) impoverished when it became independent. Shock Horror  (b) It was a different global time, there was no EU, there was no globalisation (well, not to any significant extent). After all in the years following Irish independence, very few countries improved their lot significantly due to the prevailing global conditions.
So having dispensed with the letter easily enough, It is a bit of an absurd question to ask for a few reasons. Firstly Scotland won't be significantly poorer after independence - it would be unprecedented for that to happen, given the times we live in and the situation we find ourselves in. It also certain, we probably won't be significantly richer - at least in the short term time frames we are presumably discussing. Secondly it is an absurd question, because independence is a decision we have to take and implement, before the effects will really be felt and understood. Then we have to get on with it and make it work, which is not a question of acceptance.
But beforehand (before independence happens), then obviously those people who do not feel strongly on the issue, will of course be put off by forecasts that Scotland will be "significantly poorer", "poorer than Bangladesh", "unable to support itself" and "bankrupt" (like the UK in the 1970's ) after independence. I think that is pretty obvious and why Unionist parties see this as their most effective tactic in persuading people against independence. Nevertheless, there appears to be a hardcore 40% of the Scottish electorate or so, for whom these arguments have little or no effect. Either they recognise them for the s***e they are, or that their motivation for independence is not primarily based on the practical economic arguments, more the ideological ones.
|
Cymro
|
Thing is to say "Scotland will be poorer if it was independent" is also lying. No one can see into the future. Scotland COULD become poorer by just staying in the Union because of certain economic events. Who knows?
I support independence because I want to see my country take responsibility for our own actions. The Union doesn't achieve this.
Scotland can succeed economically from Independence. It's up to the Scots to ensure this happens.
|
Anthropos
|
| Economist wrote: | | So having dispensed with the letter easily enough, It is a bit of an absurd question to ask for a few reasons. Firstly Scotland won't be significantly poorer after independence - it would be unprecedented for that to happen, given the times we live in and the situation we find ourselves in. It also certain, we probably won't be significantly richer - at least in the short term time frames we are presumably discussing. Secondly it is an absurd question, because independence is a decision we have to take and implement, before the effects will really be felt and understood. Then we have to get on with it and make it work, which is not a question of acceptance. |
I am aware that Irish economic history is significantly different from that of Scotland, but the question is not absurd, it is asking what are voters first principles.
|
Corby Boy
|
As rightly highlighted by Economist, you cannot possibly draw parallels between Ireland in the early c20th and Scotland in the c21st a time span of almost 100 years for jeez sake.
Times have completely and utterly changed.
Tourism, inward investment in electronics - silicon glen, whisky revenue, north sea oil and many more factors, were just not significant/or in existence in either Scotland or Ireland in the early c20th. The guy who wrote that letter is a numpty of the highest order and is quite frankly stupid.
I am not saying Scotland would be a rich country or a poor country under independence as previously stated who knows for sure, until it happens.
But the evidence of modern comparable independent states (numerously quoted time and again) is pointing to the fact that Scotland will do very well thank you very much.
Voters 1st principles should of course be about Scottish self determination as a proud and independent nation punching its own weight in the world, and not been considered a second rate region of a bigger whole, that frankly doesn't do a proud and ancient nation justice. That's my primary motive for supporting the whole concept, rather than purely economic reasons. However, I do actually believe Scotland will do better economically as well as it will not be bled dry any longer by Westminster, thats a personal opinion.
The letter is just simply comparing not just apples with pears, but garden peas with water melons!
Utter tosh, unionist scaremongering sh1t as usual.
|
Aventinian
|
Re: Lessons from Ireland | Anthropos wrote: | I was reminded of it as I read the Our Date With Destiny thread where fiferjohn stated "for Scotland as she is not an equal partner only a cash cow for westminster", but the economic benefits of separatism are often the basis of the pro argument which often reduces it to a practical rather than ideological argument.
Would people accept an independent Scotland if it was significantly poorer? The question is not aimed at forum users, I am think of the general public who will ultimately decide the outcome of such matters. |
It is ideological insofar as it assumes a nation-based thought process.
I'm sure my town gets raped for cash by its local authority to pay for more deprived areas. This does not mean anyone there feels that we should break off into an independent state.
|
Aventinian
|
| Cymro wrote: | | Thing is to say "Scotland will be poorer if it was independent" is also lying. No one can see into the future. Scotland COULD become poorer by just staying in the Union because of certain economic events. Who knows? |
It's called a prediction. The possibility of it being wrong is assumed.
I will leave my house in thirty minutes and likely say to somebody 'I'm going to go and pick up some documents I need' - although I am quite aware on some level I could die en route, or civilisation could collapse or something or that type.
| Quote: | I support independence because I want to see my country take responsibility for our own actions. The Union doesn't achieve this.
|
You'll have to change people to stop seeing themselves as British them, otherwise even your own argument falls at the first hurdle.
Personally I could see myself as anything, it wouldn't matter to me, as I still feel operating as a nation does not mean taking 'our own' responsibility for anything. But that's my position, not yours.
|
Economist
|
| Anthropos wrote: | | I am aware that Irish economic history is significantly different from that of Scotland, but the question is not absurd, it is asking what are voters first principles. |
Of course it is an absurd question for the reasons already set out. If people are going to come away with statements like "independence will make Scotland significantly poorer" then quite a lot of people, no matter how much they would like to see an independent Scotland, are going to be put off. That is to be expected and that is why Unionists wish to deploy these arguments - to engender fear. Clearly most people in Scotland are "soft" nationalists, if I can put it that way. I would anticipate this is the case in most countries, but in Scotland we find ourselves in a different situation.
|
voiceofourown
|
It's an issue that history shines a very revealing light on.
In the 70's/80's, successive unionist Governments repeatedly raised the spectre of a poverty ridden, third world, independent Scotland. They did this in full knowledge of the report commissioned from economist Dr Gavin McCrone (subsequently hidden away for 30 years) which revealed that, if managed properly, Scotland's economy would boom to such an extent that even SNP figures were far shy of the mark.
With a potential cash windfall from renewables, as much oil still to come out of the North Sea as has been extracted (refer to the speech by the recently retired Chairman? of BP about the future prospects of North Sea Oil), huge potential for development of carbon capture technology, mountains of coal and a strong financial sector, Scotland is probably AT LEAST as likely now, as then, to flourish.
The comparison with the Eire (as was) is risible.
|
Anthropos
|
| Economist wrote: | | Anthropos wrote: | | I am aware that Irish economic history is significantly different from that of Scotland, but the question is not absurd, it is asking what are voters first principles. |
Of course it is an absurd question for the reasons already set out. |
Well despite considering it absurd....
| Economist wrote: | | If people are going to come away with statements like "independence will make Scotland significantly poorer" then quite a lot of people, no matter how much they would like to see an independent Scotland, are going to be put off. |
You do give me an answer!
So you think voter’s first principles are not that Scotland should be an independent nation but that they shouldn’t be out of pocket. That therefore differentiates them from the Irishmen referred to in the letter I reprinted, who had as their first principles that Ireland should be free of British rule (or at least according to the writer).
| Economist wrote: | | That is to be expected and that is why Unionists wish to deploy these arguments - to engender fear. |
Negative campaigning is pretty much the main sort of campaigning in democratic politics, and Scotland is no different, they deploy them because they are – they believe - effective.
| Economist wrote: | | Clearly most people in Scotland are "soft" nationalists, if I can put it that way. I would anticipate this is the case in most countries, but in Scotland we find ourselves in a different situation. |
I think you are probably right on both points.
|
Economist
|
| Anthropos wrote: | | Economist wrote: | | Anthropos wrote: | | I am aware that Irish economic history is significantly different from that of Scotland, but the question is not absurd, it is asking what are voters first principles. |
Of course it is an absurd question for the reasons already set out. |
Well despite considering it absurd....
| Economist wrote: | | If people are going to come away with statements like "independence will make Scotland significantly poorer" then quite a lot of people, no matter how much they would like to see an independent Scotland, are going to be put off. |
You do give me an answer! |
I wouldn't say it is an answer, more a statement of the obvious. If one poses questions that are hypothetical to the extent that they are not based in fact, but in opinion and conjecture, you can extrapolate almost any outcome you like. But, in terms of your original question, this is not something that can be quantified until after the event. It is a case of an individual taking someone's viewpoint, without being in full possession of the likely outcome. I'm sure if it could be proven that Scotland would be significantly poorer then it might have an effect. In the same way, if it was proven to the Irish independence movement in the 1920's that Irish independence would result in the country being invaded, or becoming a totalitarian autocracy or something else that is abhorrent, then it might have swayed a few people's opinions on that matter. They were poor at the time, so economic wellbeing wasn't a consideration.
| Anthropos wrote: | | So you think voter’s first principles are not that Scotland should be an independent nation but that they shouldn’t be out of pocket. |
Well, I'm afraid that very much depends on the individual. But as they are highly unlikely to be out of pocket after Scottish independence then it isn't really a consideration.
| Anthropos wrote: | | That therefore differentiates them from the Irishmen referred to in the letter I reprinted, who had as their first principles that Ireland should be free of British rule (or at least according to the writer). |
You cannot compare the independence movement of the Ireland of the 1920's, with the independence movement of Scotland today. To illustrate, let's be equally absurd. Say Irish independence was taking place today, with Ireland having the booming economy it has, the enviable levels of wealth it has. Say it was proven by someone who could look into the future that Irish secession from the United Kingdom would renege all of that and make Ireland significantly poorer (which is where your original arguments are invalidated as your original assertions don't prove anything)would the same things that happened in the 1920's happen now? I very much doubt it. This is a different time we live in and it cannot be compared.
|
|
|
|