| 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. |
| Joe Middleton |
Our Date With Destiny?Will 300th anniversary of union be the day Scotland votes for independence?by Joe Middleton Things are looking good for the Scottish independence movement. The Scottish National Party are riding high in the opinion polls, and all the opinion polls regularly show a majority for independence (if you exclude the don’t knows). The SNP also has new allies, the Scottish Green Party and Scottish Socialist Party also support independence and all these parties are working together in the Scottish independence convention. There are also two major new parties which support independence the anti-EU Free Scotland Party and Tommy Sheridan’s breakaway party from the SSP, Solidarity. Unfortunately the odds are stacked against the independence parties in terms of a highly biased media (not one of the papers published in Scotland supports independence) furthermore the unionist Labour Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are all part of well funded electoral machines ran by London. TV coverage is slanted in favour of the British parties (who enjoy the lions share of coverage on the UK wide channels) and the Scottish parties are rarely featured on UK political programmes. Nonetheless people are coming to the conclusion that this could be the year Scotland votes for a pro independence administration in the Scottish parliament. If that happens then a referendum will follow with independence happening soon after a positive vote. Of course if the pro independence parties fail to reach over half the votes then the SNP would require the support of the Liberal Democrats to form an administration. Naturally the Liberal Democrats are playing political hard ball and ruling out any deal on a referendum however seasoned observers sense that they have became tired of their Labour allies and would quite like to form a new administration with the SNP. The Liberal Democrats are a federalist party. While they don’t support independence they do support more powers for the Scottish parliament. They also favour a local income tax which is SNP policy as well. They therefore share considerable common ground. In these circumstances it is likely that the Liberal Democrats will eventually (after negotiations) accept a referendum on independence but will want it later in the parliament. This might also suit the SNP who could show their competence running the devolved administration before moving on to a successful referendum on independence. There is a new found confidence in the independence movement these days. The referendum group Independence First have held a successful pro independence demonstration on 30th September last year and are planning another large march and rally on 31st March this year. The logic of their call is indisputable, if independence support outweighs support for devolution then why not call a referendum on it? If the unionists believe that their case is better why not put it to the public vote? After all independence support crosses all political parties in Scotland (including large chunks of the unionist parties voters and activists) and is clearly far larger than support for the principal pro independence party the SNP. Since the independence message isn’t allowed to travel too far through the traditional media, independence activists are increasingly turning to the internet. Blogs and pro independence websites have proliferated and almost all of the net coverage of independence is overwhelmingly positive. The independence cause is of course helped because it can appeal to both the right and left of politics. Want rid of nuclear weapons? Want to end the illegal occupation of Iraq? Independence can contribute to both of these objectives. Want a republic? A socialist or social democratic society? Independence offers that opportunity as well. Want to play a larger role in the EU or leave it altogether? Both sides can be accommodated in the short term with independence. Want smaller Government? Less taxes? Such sentiments can be ameliorated with independence as well. In fact independence can mean anything to anybody, making it an extremely difficult political argument to defeat. With independence Scots would have the freedom to choose their own highly powered Government which will have all the powers Westminster currently holds over Scotland. That attractive prospect is pulling people in from all corners to the independence cause, including the unlikely figure of the former unionist and Conservative historian Michael Fry whose in depth historical studies of the British union have led him to the conclusion that it is no longer in Scotland’s best interests. Unlike the unionists financial scaremongering over imagined deficits based on politically manipulated figures (the British funded GERS report deliberately excludes oil revenues), the independence movement asks: ‘Why not?’ If every other country can be independent then why not Scotland? At this point the unionists have provided no good reasons why Scots are uniquely incompetent to run their own affairs. Even the Conservatives have made positive noises about fiscal autonomy (granting full powers over finance to the Scottish parliament) because they realise the current ‘pocket money’ political settlement is untenable. British Labour is pinning their future recovery hopes on the current UK Chancellor Gordon Brown, however Brown is not popular in England despite making a number of embarrassing attempts to align himself more closely to their voters (he recently claimed he supported the English football team and said one of Paul Gascoine’s goals against Scotland was one of his favourites of all time, an embarrassing series of gaffes which has gained the wholesale derision of the Tartan Army). He has also made a number of opportunistic remarks about the British identity which seem designed to try and negate English discomfort at a Scottish Prime Minister. (Current polling figures indicate that English voters might actually prefer Scottish independence to a Scottish PM as interest in their own English identity has risen post Scottish and Welsh devolution.) Brown of course faces a new threat at UK level in the Conservatives new leader David Cameron. Cameron is a similarly fresh faced politician to Tony Blair in his younger years and he increasingly looks like the man who will win in middle England. However he and his party remain deeply unpopular in Scotland where the Scottish people still have harsh memories of the Thatcher government. Neither Brown or Blair appear to have any genuine interest in Scotland while obviously their glove puppet Jack McConnell is becoming increasingly desperate. Recently a Labour spokesman admitted that no-one knows who the Labour First Minister is and that they will have to fight a wholly negative campaign to try and defeat the SNP. This has of course worked before. However the Scottish people are not fools and the Scottish parliament has allowed the SNP the credibility to make further advances. The SNP leader Alex Salmond who is currently a member of the Westminster Parliament has proved to be a much more popular and credible figure than the increasingly out of touch British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair’s war in Iraq was hugely unpopular in Scotland, his plans for new nuclear weapons have also went down like a lead balloon and his aides arrests on corruption charges (for allegedly selling seats in the House of Lords) has dimmed his popularity in Scotland to a new low. If Labour do run their threatened negative campaign then the most likely outcome is that their own voters will be disillusioned and stay at home. After Labour’s move to the right under Blair their supporters are much less motivated than they used to be. Independence supporters are used to their negativity and are likely to ignore it. Certainly the SNP appear to be impervious at the moment from various attacks by the British cabinet from Tony Blair downwards. Meanwhile the supporters of independence are more excited about this election than ever before. This means that the Scottish parties on the three hundredth anniversary of the union could easily have a Golden opportunity to end it once and for all. In short then, watch out for fireworks from Scotland this year! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
"Will 300th anniversary of union be the day Scotland votes for independence? "
No, as they are not on the same day. " furthermore the unionist Labour Party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are all part of well funded electoral machines ran by London. " Oh, how ironic... "Want a republic? A socialist or social democratic society? Independence offers that opportunity as well. Want to play a larger role in the EU or leave it altogether? Both sides can be accommodated in the short term with independence. Want smaller Government? Less taxes? Such sentiments can be ameliorated with independence as well. In fact independence can mean anything to anybody, making it an extremely difficult political argument to defeat." Ah, all things to all men, eh? Of course it's hard to defeat that logic. And all these things can happen within the United Kingdom - that's why Nationalists can't raise one credible argument in support of their position which does not rely on rhetoric. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| YOUNG-SNP-SCOT |
Nonsense. Firstly, I can assure you that if a poll were to be done tomorrow (in Scotland), the question being 'The Monarchy - for or against?', the result would be a majority AGAINST. Ask the same question in England, and you're guaranteed that a majority will vote IN FAVOUR of our Majesty and co. A republic will only happen in an independent Scotland. As for playing a larger role in the EU, an independent Scotland's interests will be FAR BETTER represented at Brussells than Scotland is at the moment. As for leaving the EU, a referendum seems logical? The fact is, Aventinian, that the SNP - and other pro-independence parties - are becoming the popular choice amongst Scots. After 10 years of devolution - the peoples' supposed "settled will" - Scots feel let down. Let down on the Scottish economy - which is majorly underperforming, unlike other European INDEPENDENT nations. You may be sick to death of hearing such references to other independent countries, but it's an undeniable truth: these nations are outperforming Scotland. Let down on poverty - the most recent research publicised earlier this week showing that just under 1 MILLION Scots - that's a fifth of our people - live on the breadline. In such an oil-rich, talent-rich, resource-rich nation, 1 in 4 kids live in poverty. Now, tell me Aventinian - do such results make you proud of the union? Or will you admit that the LibLab executive have failed the people of Scotland, that remote-control from London has been detriment to our nation for far too long - and that independence is the way forward, the resting place for Scotland and its people: as a sovereign, independent nation with a real government that can represent its peoples' interests and deliver success for Scottish families. And, so that no 'xenophobic' accusations get thrown around, I would like to stress that when I say 'Scots' or 'Scottish', I do not only mean Scots born and bred, but also those who chose to live and work in Scotland - all of whom should be proud to live in and represent such a great country. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| patriot1320 |
Here, here.... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Ah, and the one thing the SNP will never dare comment on. Funny that. I don't think the monarchy will end, at least so long as Elizabeth II reigns. Polls are all over the place on the subject, and the ones that do badly seem to all be primarily about Charles. But equally this was not what I meant by my point. The monarchy could be abolished tomorrow if it was wanted without Scottish independence. It won't be, but that is not a benefit of independence, it's simply subverting democracy and becoming a demogogue. It is not a positive to argue in favour of something you'd personally like to see and find ways in which our actual democratic majority in favour can be changed.
It'd be a referendum to join the EU if anything, as an independent Scotland would not automatically gain membership. It should be represented in accordance with its proportion of the EU population and not on any other criteria. You're simply asking for special treatment. Anyway, I think you'll fast find that an independent Scotland would not do well simply because it has a couple of idiots of its own on the Council of Ministers. Scotland is insignificant to the EU, the UK is far from that.
The Greens are fairly popular because of being Green. If you seriously believe anyone votes for them on the basis of constitutional positions then you're deluding yourself. The socialists are doing badly. And the SNP aren't. Anyway, you'll struggle to find many independent nations out there - most have other nations within them. A pure nation-state is a rare thing, and even Scotland isn't one: we have the Shetlands etc, after all.
No they're not. There are 190-odd independent states in the world, and the vast majority of them have nothing like the economy of Scotland. We are a first world, Westernised nation. You'll make comparisons with the countries that suit you, not the ones that don't.
The union has what to do with political issues? Please tell me. Anyway, poverty is relative. And our poor live relatively luxurious livestyles. If you want to see real poverty, I suggest you pop over to Africa. Then you'll likely be very ashamed at complaining about the British definition of poverty.
Of course I will; I'm a Tory. I loathe Labour and get considerably wound-up by the Liberals.
So what comes from London is 'remote control' yet what comes from Edinburgh is somehow more representative? A ridiculous double-standard. I remind you the SNP seem to be doing more for centralisation from local government than any other party. Which is also what devolution has resulted in. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
Who cares about the 'charity worker', these B list celebs are hardly critical to the independence debate.
Yawn......
Of course it would........why wouldn't it. Do you really think that the EU would say no?.......come on really?
Who cares how you think it should be represented. The poster is asking for nothing, only arguing that we are under-represented now and I believe that recent revelations back this up. See what you've done here. You've argued against something that wasn't said and ignored what was.
Ah, running out of constructive arguments.....so deride Scots as being too idiotic to represent Scotland and belittling your own country.
OK let's go with ones that are similar too ours in size, location and relative modernity......take your pick.
Are you serious?
You have no answer to the posters point do you?
It isn't, it only demostrates that you have an inability to comprehend that to a Scot of an independence bent Engalnd is a foreign country......hence remote control. In the same way that euro sceptics talk about Brussels. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
So you've just negated the point of your friend there, who pointed to the monarchy as the main thing that could change with an independent Scottish state.
I'm not here to entertain you.
It's a matter of law, not what the EU wants, or Scotland wants. Scotland would have to apply for membership - that much has been settled and even most of the Nats on here grudingly accept it. It takes a lot to get them to accept anything that doesn't fit in with their world-view too.
If we are under-represented, so are the majority of people in Europe who live in larger states. Representation is far tailored towards ridiculously sized micro-states like Luxembourg. The problem isn't under-representation, it's over-representation. And it's not right or proper to argue simply to change camps, you actually have to have a legitimate and decent ideological reason to argue for change in that department. But then again, the ideology of collective selfishness ignores such minor concerns.
I don't see how I did that in any way, shape or form. I simply said Scotland is insignificant on its own - which it is. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Not many of them have been involved in seceding from larger states recently, so the comparisons are still ill-considered.
There is a difference between politics and constitutional matters. I'd expect anyone with an iota of understanding of these issues to know that.
I do - my argument is that he doesn't have a point as whatever number of Scottish people he mentioned as being in poverty are not in poverty.
Just because you choose to delude yourself with a double standard doesn't make it objectively true, as the poster tried to make it out. Either way, such delusion do not belong in a debate with people who clearly do not accept them and never will. I don't think most Scottish nationalists could ever consider England a foreign country - just as neither British law nor the British people generally recognise Éire as a foreign country. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| mal |
I don't think most Scottish nationalists could ever consider England a foreign country - just as neither British law nor the British people generally recognise Éire as a foreign country.[/quote]
Only an Imperialist could utter that crap 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Only an Imperialist could utter that crap [/quote]
Hmm... I suppose I can prove you wrong here, because I uttered it (well, wrote it) and I am not an Imperialist. I simply realise that there is in effect no cultural differences between the nations of the British Isles. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| mal |
I regard Eire as a foriegn country,the same as any other independent state,the minute England is independent, ditto.
Safe to say that the context of foriegn from a Brit perspective may be very different from a Scottish one,an Imperialist may remember the Empire and all it`s parts as being his and therefore WOULDN`T equate it to being foreign. Aventian seems to fit the mould. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| mairead |
Come off it Aventian,
Scotland is no more insignificant than England. You can't get away from the fact that the might of old England disappeared long ago, in fact England was only ever mighty because it was united with Scotland, Wales and Ireland at one time, not to mention the overseas colonies. England on it's own amounted to very little and will amount to even less if Independence coms to Scotland. Because the majority of English people regard Britain as England, they are blind to the truth. How do you account for the fact that this insignificant country sends water and electricity down to England. Go and read the McCrone report if you want the facts about oil too. The plain but unacceptable fact to the English, is that it is Scotland who subsidises England and not vice versa. In 2002, according to the treasury book for that year, Scotland had 8.6% of the UK population yet raised 10.41 of all tax revenues. In that year Scotland contributed 9.632 billion pounds to the UK Exchequer with very little returned. Without the money going in from Scotland, England would indeed struggle. Think about the natural resources in England, What are they. It is an over poulated country whose green belts are fast disappearing. NO, any English people who are smart and against an Independent Scotland know full well that it is England who will lose out. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
that is why England will not give Scotland independence . we the Scottish people have to wake up to the fact that we are not the poor country they make us out to be .it is England that is making Scotland poor ,it is a sad state of affairs out of a population of 5 million nearly half a million are in poverty. so it is now time Scotland claims her destiny and because a free and sovereign state again and be a prosperous one | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
You really think? One has what is quite probably the most important city in the world in it, ten times the population and would carry on as a global power if independent. The other wouldn't. Of course, England too would suffer from a loss of its status if it broke away from the UK as well.
It certainly helped, but I don't think an Imperial project could not have been made by a sovereign England back in the day. And yes, Britain is no longer a superpower - there's only one now - and it probably hasn't been since the Suez. It doesn't mean it's not still one of the most significant countries in the world.
A great nation boasting about it's water exports? Rather reminds me of the Borat film's parody of the Uzbek national anthem boasting about their potassium being being the best in central Asia and their water filtration being good.
If it does, even by SNP figures, it's a pretty insignificant amount. A surplus of £0.8 billion or something like that. With inflation, we might just be able to spend that on another Scottish Parliament building! I know some will confuse this for some sort of lack of patriotism (an apostate, of course, being the most hated person in Nationalist circles) but I am simply accepting the facts: the UK is a significant country, England probably could be fairly significant (although it'd be a great blow to become independent); Scotland on the other hand could not be. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Come off it.
They're not, as I've pointed out above.
Destiny? It disturbs me how people substitute Nationalism for religion...
You see, this is where a normal person and a nationalist are distinguished. You have to imply ownership of your people over a country in order to consider it non-foreign. I don't. Ireland, however, is linked in virtually every way with the United Kingdom. Anyway, Ireland wasn't part of the British Empire, it was part of the United Kingdom. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jimbo |
Saw this on FreeScotland sight.
Jack Straw was a hell of a lot more honest when he said he was worried England would lose their seat at the UN Security council if Scotland became independent. Straw is quoted by the BBC as saying: "Historically, England called the shots to achieve a union because the union was seen as a way, among others things, of amplifying England's power worldwide. And the reverse would certainly be true. A broken-up United Kingdom would not be in the interests of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, but especially not England." He adds, "Our [England's] voting power in the European Union would diminish. We'd slip down in the world league GDP tables. Our case for staying in the G8 would diminish and there could easily be an assault on our permanent seat in the UN." [Security Council] <quote. If Scotland's GDP is so bad and we're subsidy junkies surely England's GDP would climb in the world league tables? Can anybody explain this to me? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Anthropos |
Yes, you have to look at the quote in context:
So as you can see he is trying to make a case for the continuation of the union, doesn't mean he isn't talking out his arse, he is trying to justify Scots like Brown and Reid making policy that only effects England. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Anthropos |
Of course it is, it's 10 times bigger! In world politics size matters.
England - before the union - was one of the major powers in Europe along with France and Spain, so it was a significant power on its own (which Scotland never was). However it was only with the British Empire that it became the world’s first superpower, but it was - very significantly - the first country to industrialise. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Jimbo |
Thanks Anthropos,
The full quote that you give above was not available to me only the abridged piece which I posted. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pip |
And that is the only time that anyone's ever bothered to defend the union to the English. Straw, who had previously condemned the English for being inherently violent and domineering, then tried to appeal to some lust for power. Who cares if America loses its second seat on the UN security council anyway? The unionist parties have tied themselves in knots by trying to justify the union on purely economic grounds. If that's the best they've got then they're really in trouble. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Actually John Major - in his autobiography - stated much the same things as Jack Straw, about how he thought the break up of the Union would affect England in terms of things such as the G8 and UNSC. He came to the same conclusions and wasn't trying to defend the rights of Brown and Reid to interfere in domestic English affairs.
FWIW I think there is probably a grain of truth in the comments, but in reality the UK ceased to exist as an influence in geopolitics a very long time ago. Independence will allow each country to get a true measure of its contribution to the international community and I think that is a good thing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| mairead |
Aventian
Sure it may be ten times bigger, doesn't mean it's ten times greater. Scotland was also a great nation before the union. A nation that is probably the oldest in Europe and has never been wholly conquered to boot. How mighty was England when the Normans took over? The English were kicked out of France, kicked out of Ireland and kicked out of Scotland long before the union, and the union of the crowns occured when a Scottish King ascended the English throne. The fact that this country did not go to war in Europe the way England did, does not make it any less great. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pip |
Indeed, the points Major and Straw make are self-evident. GB and France, nevermind England, are IMHO increasingly dubious permanent members of the security council. What I'd like to hear is a case for the Union other than an appeal to past glories or an inflated sense of global clout. Major's someone I've always had a bit of respect for, and he's every right to say 'I told you so' to the other unionists, as he does in this article; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinio...ml=/opinion/2007/03/09/do0901.xml It's just a shame that he's stuck on a version of English Votes For English Measures, along with the main body of the Conservative party. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
The UK can no longer compete with the United States, but it is still one of the world's most influential countries. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
It is only influencial at the sufferance (and it is sufferance) of other countries in the world, especially the USA - which basically means it isn't. I don't know about others, but I find it toe-curlingly embarrassing that there are those - like Margaret Thatcher and Blair and others who think Britain is some sort of power to be reckoned with in the world - and adopt a stature to that effect. It is no wonder most people think the UK is a joke.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I'm afraid I don't have a great deal of sympathy for John Major and his position vis a vis Scotland. I get the impression that his idea that Scotland was fed a diet of anti-English noises from the Labour Party comes from their addressing of the "Scottish Question", which was quite prominent in the 1990's. Prior to devolution, his government ruled over Scotland without any mandate to do so, (as imperfect as the electoral system is - at least the Labour Party have a majority of English seats in the House of Commons) in a situation which makes the West Lothian Question look like the nonsense it really is. It is sad that he is stuck on such a policy of English Votes in the House of Commons. It may solve the WLQ, but it just creates another constitutional anomaly somewhere else. Hopefully though, he is going the way of Michael Portillo, who at least recognises the Union is dead. It might just take a bit more time for him to get there. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
No country would have any influence in the world if other countries banded together against it. As for the UK, of course we are a world power, and still one of the most significant. If you think people see the UK as a joke, then what can I say - you have very different beliefs to most Britons and my experiences are completely the reverse. We still have probably the finest armed forces in the world, a great reach into many former colonies, a number of close and influential friends and a foreign intelligence service that puts the Americans to shame. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| mairead |
our date with destinyHave to agree with Economist there. Both the US and GB think they are the most important countries on the world stage. Sorry, but that is only the opinion of some politicians and those who believe them are totally blind to the modern world.Re, the West Lotian question. For how many years did English MP's dictate what happened in Scotland. Shoe and other foot spring to mind |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Re: our date with destiny
Great Britain is far inferior to the United States in international stature, more's the pity, but it's a fact that I think everyone here accepts.
Can't you see a difference? English MPs can't vote on Scottish matters, but Scottish MPs can vote on English matters... that was never the case before. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Joe Middleton |
The longer quotation of the interview doesn't take away from the fact that Straw is saying that Scottish independence would affect England in a negative way and he also admits that the seat at the UN security council which is supposed to represent the UK is really used on behalf of England's interests.
At the moment the UK has a voice in the world and Scotland has no voice. If Scotland becomes independent then yes it will affect England in that they may lose power in the EU and the UN (though at least they will have a seat and their flag will fly) but in return WE will get back the voice we should never have lost. England has used Scotland and Wales to amplify her power for long enough. After independence she will have to adjust to a post imperialist role as a normal country. That can only be positive. Suddenly the need for nukes would disappear (unless England wants them on her soil) and the idea that it's a good idea to pretend to be a superpower by hanging on to the US will hopefully disappear also. Other effects would be the possible loosening of the bonds with Northern Ireland. The unionists are proud of their British identity but I'm not so sure they would still want to be direct ruled by England if Scotland and Wales split off. It would also encourage other independence movements in the Basque Country and Catalonia. Most importantly we would decide our own international policy for the first time for four hundred years (political power obviously left with James VI) which would be a vast step forward. Independence is normality. No-one can really argue against it with any credibility. Whether you are on the left or right it makes logical sense. Which is why we will win, eventually. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Well, duh.
I don't think he admits anything of the sort.
That's a ridiculous vacation of logic. Scotland is part of the UK, hence is represented by it. It's like me saying I have no representative in Parliament because my constituency and I have different names. Ludicrous.
You think? Somehow I believe the UK is probably one of the most responsible countries in the international community these days - far better than the Americans, more reasonable than the French, not some sort of bizarre hell-hole like the Russians or Chinese. That's one of the reasons I think we should retain our nuclear arsenal. Ideally, I'd like to see no-one with it, but if there was one country I'd want to control 'the button' it'd be Great Britain.
I doubt it, but whenever Northern Ireland has attempted to do anything separately, it has always been to the detriment of the Catholic community.
Maybe Palestine and the IRA too?
That assumes Scotland is a person, which it isn't. Not any more than the UK, at least.
I'll keep saying it until it gets through: no it isn't. There are just under 200 states in the world, and hundreds more nations and national communities. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| mairead |
"You'll Keep saying it till you get through?"
So what you are saying is that you are absolutely correct and eveyone should share your opinion.? I think not. If everyone agreed with you, what would be the point of debating the issue. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pip |
Exactly so. What are things coming to if even an ale-drinking, cricket-fan can't get behind England? There seems to be far too much 'two wrongs make a right' thinking going on re the WLQ. There are a few people who think that an English Parliament would never get off the ground before it was overtaken by events (Scottish independence), but if the article in the other thread is to be believed, the SNP are shifting their focus a bit. In time they, and the unionists, are going to come around. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| wisnaeme |
I tend to agree with "Economist" and "Joe Mddleton",recent events and relevations from past UK government actions( many of them Scots born) have confirmed that Scotland as a nation has not been fully informed,consulted or had their interests best represented on the world stage. Enough is enough and I would rather I was represented by a small fish in a large pond than represented by folk with allusions of grandeur above their station who have another agenda,another set of interests not necessarily in the best interests of Scotland and her people.
For example,another point is that even if some New Labour MPs abstain, resign or sin of sins vote against the renewal of trident, they are still not resigning from their New Labour party membership or their positions as MPs representing most of New Labour party policy diktats. In effect they are still part of the New Labour party machine and all this wailing,handwringing and the wearing of sack cloth and ashes by some of the people's party membership has no meaningful relevance or account to good governance when the interests and concerns of the people they supposedly represent are thrown out of the bluidy window when the whips cry"do wanna be in my gang,my gang,my gang or else" and stuff representation, democracy and accountability.. Only if they have the moral courage to stand up and be counted will it be meaningful as a point of principle and personal conviction. I have no doubt that this outrageous haste to gerrymander an unpopular decision on Trident through the UK parliament will suceed but at a cost not only to the public purse but also to themselves. I would like to be a fly on the wall listening to a conversation between Tony Benn and his son on the subject of Trident. So what's it to be, act on what your moral conscience,principles and on behalf of most of the UK electorate or just doing as yer telt to do without debate, without consultation and without thought, just like sheep following mein leader. Folk are not just getting disallusioned with this rabble we call a government,they're getting bluidy angry and all, on both sides of the border. As a Scot living in England, I am ashamed to open my mouth lest I be silently accused of being of the same mind and association with those cretins in the New Labour UK government that share place of birth with myself. Whit was yon line in yon song flower of Scotland? "Send them hame tae think again". Aye bluidy right enough. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
But nobody is debating the issue, they're simply ignoring it because it doesn't suit them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| wisnaeme |
Actually it is being debated but the debate appears to be one sided. Nobody in the status quo has given sufficient or substainable debate on reasons for no change in the fundamentalistic union camp that isn't outdated,outmoded or of relevance to today's circumstances. It's mainly negative platitudes of sh*ty doom and gloom that verges on phobia from themselves of a unionist persuasion. I do wish they would stop excreting yesterday's glories from their orifices and start giving plausible reasons why it would be better to remain within a union that has long since gone past it's sell by date. Maybe we could respect some folk more if there was some sort of defence of the union based on practicalities and factual benefits and not on scaremongering,arrogance, deceit and half truths verging on the ridiculous. Debate facts not presumptions based on past glories but we don't have access to all the facts do we? Now why would any reasonable person want to withhold facts or ignore reality when presumptiously debating on issues of importance because it doesn't suit them? Aye right, stupid question,wasn't it? . . |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
i think it is only right as partners in this Union that we can question if it is working to the benefit of us(Scotland) .if it is going to stay as it is then Scotland must be represented same as England ie same amount of mps and equal share of the tax and other revenues.a say in any meetings with the eu not being told by some Whitehall twit that we have no say .
that's not going to happen for Scotland as she is not an equal partner only a cash cow for westminster and we are just to shut up and count ourselves lucky to be in the union . fingers crossed on the 3rd of may our destiny will be the first step in making Scotland into a proud and independent country with a proper voice on the world stage and not a lacky region of England. i would like to say please he people of Scotland wake up and vote for independence before all our resources have been stotlen and we are left with very little . long live scotland and the end of the union |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| mairead |
Our date with destinyAye, amen and cheers to your last few lines fiferjohn. If the Scots could only show the same national pride and fervour at the ballot box as they show at the International football games, independence would be ours sooner rather than later. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
What an appauling, undemocratic, illiberal and practically inhuman idea. Nations are not partners in the state, individual citizens are. You propose it is only nations to be respresented, not people - I just don't have the words to express how ridiculous this notion is. Nations are not sentient, individual human beings are, and it is only they who are capable of making decisions. Is it really any surprise I think you Nationalists want to lead us into a velvet dictatorship by the back door when you speak like this? Tell me, does personal liberty matter a jot to you so long as the greater glory of the nation is fulfilled? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
aventinian
so scotland is not a equal partner in the union . what i am getting at is if there are only 70 mps in scotland then there should only be 70 mps in england . we should get equal share of all revenues raised in britain not what westminister decides. scots do not have a say in issuses in the eu we are excluded so only whitehall has a say and that is not right if we are equal partners. if we are not then the treaty of union was made to sell scotland down the river knowly. it's undemoratic has we scotland have to do what is good for the south east of england |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| billalba |
Fiferjohn...You only have to read some of the comments by unionists or pretendy worldists that the status quo is the way things should remain...in other words they are very happy for Scotland to be treated unfairly...and cannot see anything other that Westminster rule. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
No, Scotland should be an equal part of the country, not a partner.
I know fine well what you're getting at, and it's appauling to me.
It gets worse...!
Scottish people have an equal say to English people about what these bodies do.
No, it was made to incorporate us into a new country.
No we don't, we have to do what the majority of people of this country, the United Kingdom, vote for. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
so it is right if for instantance Scotland as a whole votes for say no new trident(topic of the day) and the English mps for yes then we do want they want regardless. so is that democratic. if all the Scots mps where playing from the same song sheet at all times we will never be allowed for it to happen if it does not suit the English mps .now to me that is undemocratic. more and more Scots are starting to wake up to the fact that in essence that they do not have that much of a say as a state.
Westminster handed the Scots a parliament but made sure it does not a teeth to act without the say so of Westminster and that is meant to keep us happy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Of course it's right! I don't understand how there can possibly be any debate on that.
Well then, you clearly don't understand democracy - as that a ridiculous consociationalist hegemony you're suggesting, which is supremely anti-democratic. You see - people are individuals. They have individual views and beliefs. There is no such thing as a 'Scottish view' or an 'English view' on a political matter. Nor should anything which is simply a question of who gains a privilege be put to a vote. My vote is worth broadly the same as anyone else's in this kingdom because I am equal to them. And that's the way I'll have it stay, thank you. Tell me. Why should, say, Asians not have - in your system - the same representation as whites? No more MPs for the predominantly white areas of Britain than the Asian areas get? That is, after all, pretty much what you are suggesting between Scotland and England.
The Scottish Parliament can do plenty without the consent of the UK Parliament. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
It's startling how people can be led to believe that protesting against complete and obvious unfairness is somehow supporting unfairness. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
what i am trying to get at is the status quo at this moment is all about what is the best for England or the south east of England even some of the people from the north of England feel the same way the Scots do.just look at the increasing talk in England about their independence.the union in it's current form needs needs changing.
i am talking about all the people of the nations Scotland ,wales.n/ireland.england. the south east of England have just as many seats in westminster that Scotland does and that is 3 or 4 counties not a country and Scotland is a country no a district or county |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| billalba |
Aventian..it is more startling that unionists/status quo(ists) cannot see the wood for the trees.....you may have some idea that as countries Scotland and England are given the same status but it is obvious that if everyone of the Scottish MP's were to vote for something and all the English MP's were to vote for something else...The English MP's vote would carry, now it is clear from all your comments that you don't care because you somehow see this as a normal state of affairs and I must admit I have a brother who is quite like you and gives the same responses....but I hope you can see that people who are nationalists cannot see any fairness in a system that has basically total disregard for your country..
ie. Not long after the union all Scottish mps voted to scrap it..they were outvoted..you abviously see that as ok. Blair has repeated that He in Parliament is Sovereign regardless of what the legal position is Scotland is...is that fair..probably in your view yes... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| wisnaeme |
Really, is that a fact? That's a wopper of an all encompassing sweeping statement, even from the likes of yourself,"Aventinian". Dearie me, ah think ye'll have tae come out of yon dark closet ye've been in, that's if ye can find the bluidy door handle tae let yerself out. Keeping company wae yon mushrooms and being fed on the same diet is nae verra guid fer ye. When a political decision is enforced on Scotland by another place to the detriment of Scotland's best interests and well being, are you suggesting that individuals within Scotland are not worthy to, cannot respect themselves enough to, band together to oppose by lawful means that political decision based on an overwhelming consensus of Scottish opinion on a viewpoint in Scotland which may differ from an English viewpoint? Yer @rse, "Aventinian".
Agreed. So an overwhelming majority of scottish individuals who voted together in opposing a viewpoint by imposition from a majority of English individuals banding together would not be by any stretch of your imagination a Scottish viewpoint or an English viewpoint? Aye right, yer @rse"Aventinian".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Highlander |
Parliament is sovereign and so was the scottish parliament before the union. And of course it is fair for the majority of mps to vote for something and to get it in their country.
So basically you think that the minority should over rule the majority in all cases. That is just crazy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
so want you are saying Scotland should just shut up and do what westminister says as we a a minority and have no rights.only the sovereign westminster parliament has the say.here is me thinking that the mps worked for us the constitutants and to represent their interests .sdilkly me there only there to do what the sovereign parliament says . so do they bother with the charade of letting the Scots vote when we are going to be over rule and ignored all the time | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Highlander |
Scotland has a voice through its mps and they vote on issues in the westminster parliament which scotland is a part of. So to say that scotland should do what the westminster parliament says is 100% right as that is the will of the U.K. people. Scot mps, some will vote with the majority and some will vote with the minority. It is quite simple really. In an independent Scotland the exact same sitution you hate so much will also arise. The people in the north will have to accept the majority vote of central Scotland. Does that mean that the north of Scotland should shut up? No. But this is what we call democracy. We will live in a country where the majority, and rightly so, wins. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pip |
Just out of interest which 3 or 4 counties are you defining as the South East of England? Incidentally, Scotland still has, on average, more MPs per head of population than England. All this debate seems to reiterate is that no stable union between Scotland and England is possible, without some disadvantage to either nation. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
Kent , surrey ,middlesex ,Sussex ,buckinghamshire think there is maybe two or three that i have forgotten it's been a few years since i worked in london.
there lies the point exactly we are allways the ones that are disadvantaged.i think you will find thery is then same feelinf in the north of england as well the only differance is as we are a counrty so we have a solution and that is independance the north of england aren't so lucky |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pip |
There are 9 counties in the English South East Region, although that doesn't include Essex or Hertfordshire, which are both part of the London commuter belt. Sussex is two counties and Middlesex doesn't technically exist anymore, having been absorbed by London. There are six English counties that border with London. Not quite sure where these 3 or 4 counties with collectively as many MPs as Scotland are, and they all have less MPs per head than the average in Scotland. Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex frex only have 44 combined against Scotland's 59. I won't even mention the WLQ.
Which point? Sorry, you'll have to explain.
I think you will find that there are areas of poverty and prosperity throughout England, and that monolithic concepts like 'The North' and 'The South' have little reality, except as motorway signs. Don't get me wrong, no one wants to see English cities besides London develop and thrive more than I do, and Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester to name three are doing just that. I have every sympathy for Scotland and the union's frustration of its national ambitions, and I have full confidence in its prosperous, independent future. There are plenty of things wrong with the UK, without the need to fabricate non-existent ones. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
And why does 'nation' come into this anyway? Why not race - or religion - you can guarantee there will be plenty of interest groups who'll try to get that sort of thing brought about. Reflecting interest groups is simply giving a voice to the loudest and often most ignorant in society.
As it happens, the UK Parliament cannot be said to be sovereign. What the Prime Minister says is entirely irrelevant to the law - and what is relevant is the judgement of courts, who have that it isn't (MacCormick v. HMA). Either way, this is a result of the treaty of union - not the previous Scottish situation. Indeed, modern feeling seems to be that the Parliament of Scotland was considered sovereign prior to 1707. Anyway, I don't think secession should be legal except in cases of the state acting illegitimately - abusing its citizens etc. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
It's what's best for the majority. And yes, sometimes that means helping out the areas which provide us with most tax revenue - which ends up being disproportionately spent in Scotland.
In terms of politics, there should be no difference. Scotland is just another arbitrarily drawn line on the map. Anyway, Scotland isn't really a country by standard usage - at least not the usage I was taught. It's a nation. Do you really think it matters to a voter what someone else says the place they live in is - a nation or a district? Not really, is that answer.
If you agree with democracy, then yes, surprisingly enough you tend to agree that the majority's view can over-ride the minority. Obviously this can lead to abuses of power, which is why we curtail democracy with representative democracy, human rights and so on. I'd honestly rather not have a state than one which gives special rights to groups of people.
Why does anyone appear out to vote, when it only takes one other person to cancel them out? Because it's democratic, it's not about the individual, but about the state. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
the only state i care about is the state of Scotland and as long as we have the status quo as is we will keep being ignored and polices that are only good for england put into place. the scots mps voted in favour of not renewing trident and not wanting in in scotland but because the english want it's tough luck on us.perfect example of wants wrong we are not listened to. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| mairead |
As for Tridentand it's possible successor. If Westminster want it, they should base it down in England. Not up here where the Scots don't want it..
Nor should Scotland be the dumping ground for nuclear waste that it has become, and why should a backbone of giant pylons be erected through and up the centre of Scotland to send CHEAPER electricity to the southern counties of ENGLAND. Some of you guys should waken up and smell the coffee honestly. And yes, the northern counties of England suffer the same discrimination as Scotland. Anything north of the Watford line does not really exist for the Westminster Government. As for the Scottish parliament, what a Joke. The toothless tiger is an understatement. As Mahatma Ghandi once said, "Better to be ruled badly by ourselves than to be ruled badly by other people" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I know, that's what worries me.
Trying to make out because you are outnumbered that you are discriminated against is nonsense. I am one person - in Scotland of six million. I don't automatically assume just because I am outnumbered that every law made works against me.
That's because the English are paying for 80 or 90% of it. What has Scotland got to do with it anyway?
I remind you Westminster is the UK Parliament. Nobody wants this sort of thing in their back garden, but it seems that most people do want it to protect Britain. It is the government's position to have to make such judgements on locating things like this. In these cases, they must simply way up the strategic advantages.
Well, one, lower CO2 emissions considering that the electricity in the north of Scotland is predominantly from renewables, secondly it will stimulate the economy.
We are always ruled by other people, anything else is Anarchism. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| fiferjohn |
question if Scotland votes in favour of independence are we as the smaller country in this union want be allowed to follow the wish of the country(please the uk is not a country it is 4 in a coalition to make up the uk).if i get you train of thought right aventine we will be ignored.
this union is dead if not now it will be in about 10 years it as run it's course. it is just how much of our resources will be strip for the benefit of England before it happens |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| George |
This is why you're regarded as a 'pantomime villain' by most on this forum. A complete inability to see or even attempt to see things from your opponents perspective. It renders almost all of your postings as arrogant and supremist.......effectively eliminating constructive debate. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| mairead |
Sorry Aventian, nothing personal but you don't half talk a load of codswallop. They don't need to put trident inside the Westminster Parliament, a nice wee spot on the Thames would do fine .
Has it never occurred to you that if there was to be even a minor nuclear attack, the nuclear bases in Scotland would be the first targets. Duh. Not only are our waters infested with nuclear subs, our hilllsides are full of nuclear weapons too. Yeah, right, blow Scotland out of existence first. The whole bloody lot should be shifted down to England and see what the English people think about that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
You'd have an easier time arguing that Scotland was in fact a coalition of four countries. The UK is a single, unitary state - look at the terms of the Act of Union, there's no room for ambiguity there.
Do you really believe that the (over-representingly Scottish) government is out to steal your money and give it to English people? You might wish to explain then why we are given far higher per capita spending than England...
There are certain things, George, that are unquestionably wrong. Distorting democracy to represent some random attribute in people to reflect your own interests better is one of those things. Try posting this sort of thing in a normal political forum, and it'd be mocked. You'll note I am polite enough to engage in a constructive debate about it. If I doubt something, I ask and consider; I debate when I know that I am right. Just like anybody. It's called holding an opinion - and for someone quite as opinionated as yourself, I'd imagine that'd be easy to understand.
Yep. But I wouldn't be affected as I live miles away from Faslane. So I don't see how that makes me any different from an Englishman. Scotland is not a target, Faslane is. In the case of the vast |