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.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Luke P

Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

The act of union was with England. By extension, Scotland was united with Wales and then Ireland, later Northern Ireland. Scots heritage runs thick in Northern Ireland, less so in Wales. Do Scots have any affinity for Wales? Do you hate them as much as the English? What about your cousins in Northern Ireland? Why would you want to be divorced from them?
Zed

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Luke P wrote:
The act of union was with England. By extension, Scotland was united with Wales and then Ireland, later Northern Ireland. Scots heritage runs thick in Northern Ireland, less so in Wales. Do Scots have any affinity for Wales? Do you hate them as much as the English? What about your cousins in Northern Ireland? Why would you want to be divorced from them?


Those who want to see an independent Scotland don't "hate" anyone.
Just because you are pro-Scottish or independence doesn't mean you are anti anything else.
For myself, I'm probably anti-british, and that includes unionist political parties, institutions and peoples from all parts of the UK, including Scotland.
Holebender

Dear oh dear... when you grow up and leave your parents' home and begin looking after your own affairs, does that mean you hate your parents? Does getting your own home mean you are getting divorced from your parents?

Independence is about maturity and taking care of your own business, not about hating anything.
Luke P

Well there is a vociferous minority to whom hatred is justification for independence. That's beside the point. Does anyone want to answer the question? What is your view of Wales and N.I? The Ulster Scots are your cousins/brothers. Don't you want to be part of the same country?
Holebender

The English are our cousins (literally in my case), as are Canadians, Australians, etc. Do you want to be part of the same country as New Zealand?
Luke P

I don't think your analogy works. New Zealand, as part of the Commonwealth, is about as united to the UK as possible despite the distance (seen the flag?). Likewise Australia and Canada.
The difference is of course that Ulster is about 40 miles from Scotland, not 9,000.

Smile
Holebender

OK... France and Belgium share a land border and a common language. Should they be united? What about the USA and Canada? Maybe the old Soviet Union should just reform? How about it?
Luke P

I am getting the feeling you just don't give a **** about 'em. Thanks.
Holebender

That's odd, because I am getting the feeling you don't give a damn about your arguments and are only here to troll.

Otherwise you would actually think things through and come up with a reasoned case, and you would respond to points put to you.
cornubian

Quote:
Independence is about maturity and taking care of your own business, not about hating anything


It's also about giving people more power. One vote amongst all the votes of the UK or one vote amongst all the votes of Scotland. You choose.
Luke P

You're wrong. I do give a **** or I wouldn't waste my time. It's a fascinating question don't you think? The Union is not just about England, but also Wales and Northern Ireland. I've never heard the issue addressed.
Holebender

Then you haven't spent much time discussing with Scottish nationalists. Scottish independence is about Scotland and the UK, not about Scotland and England.

You really ought to know there's more to the UK than England.
babykitten

Luke P wrote:
You're wrong. I do give a **** or I wouldn't waste my time. It's a fascinating question don't you think? The Union is not just about England, but also Wales and Northern Ireland. I've never heard the issue addressed.

Well, technically, the 1707 union was between Scotland and England & Wales.  Wales was conquered by England and as such, England and Wales are, technically, the same thing, one unit, called "England & Wales".

Of course, in terms of nationality or identity, England and Wales are individual units but not legally.

Scotland was never 'taken over' by England & Wales in the same way that Wales was by England.  Scotland, right from 1707, had a unique identity within the union, with a separate legal system and, I suppose, a limited form of 'devolution', if you like.

Even today, we hear about "England & Wales" in the news, because they are a single unit in legal terms and in administration.  The Welsh Assembly has only just started to change that.

Anyway, this is all besides the point, because, as others have said, independence is not about independence from England or the English.  It is about independence from the corrupt, over-centralised UK state.

Since Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the UK state, then independence from the UK state is, by definition, independence from Wales and Northern Ireland too.  But so what?
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
there is a vociferous minority to whom hatred is justification for independence
So, Luke, you claim to be a supporter of independence for Northumbria, and you claim that, as such, you want a fight with us over Lothian and Edinburgh. So, which does that make you? Are you "a vociferous minority for whom hatred is justification for independence"   -   or are you a liar?
Luke P

It's incredible no-one wants to answer this simple question - apart from one very informed answer (thank you) - but just denigrate my question and me... I am curious that Scots "nationalists" should feel no affinity for the rest of the people of the UK despite being to a large extent, close kin...

In my opinion the union was a half-baked compromise that was never fully resolved and it's really no surprise it is falling apart, but perhaps the UK could survive if such issues as the relationship between Scotland and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could be defined....

(And sorry - to those who think the UK was too centralised - 1) not any more 2) The UK is really a very small country, look at a map.
Holebender

This seems like a very strange stance for a supporter of Northumbrian independence to take. Explain to us how you think Northumbria can become independent while the UK survives?
Luke P

Read the NPA thread and you will understand.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
The act of union was with England. By extension, Scotland was united with Wales and then Ireland, later Northern Ireland. Scots heritage runs thick in Northern Ireland, less so in Wales. Do Scots have any affinity for Wales? Do you hate them as much as the English? What about your cousins in Northern Ireland? Why would you want to be divorced from them?
Zed wrote:
Those who want to see an independent Scotland don't "hate" anyone.
Holebender wrote:
Independence is about maturity and taking care of your own business, not about hating anything.
Luke P wrote:
It's incredible no-one wants to answer this simple question

Your "question", if we can dignify it with such a descrption, has been answered, several times over. If you're too thick to recognise an answer when it's staring you in the face, that's your problem.
Aventinian

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Luke P wrote:
The act of union was with England. By extension, Scotland was united with Wales and then Ireland, later Northern Ireland. Scots heritage runs thick in Northern Ireland, less so in Wales.


Well, considering great swathes of Scotland were covered by the people we'd call the Welsh today before the Scots ever showed up, I suspect that's a bit of an artificial division.

Personally I don't even think very much about Wales. It isn't somewhere that has ever interested me. I went once, saw that everything was in order and never returned.
Aventinian

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Zed wrote:
Those who want to see an independent Scotland don't "hate" anyone.


Plenty of them do.

Quote:
Just because you are pro-Scottish or independence doesn't mean you are anti anything else.
For myself, I'm probably anti-british, and that includes unionist political parties, institutions and peoples from all parts of the UK, including Scotland.


Even the most civic-minded SNPers seem to be solidly anti-British.
Zed

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Aventinian wrote:
Zed wrote:
Those who want to see an independent Scotland don't "hate" anyone.


Plenty of them do.

Quote:
Just because you are pro-Scottish or independence doesn't mean you are anti anything else.
For myself, I'm probably anti-british, and that includes unionist political parties, institutions and peoples from all parts of the UK, including Scotland.


Even the most civic-minded SNPers seem to be solidly anti-British.


I have been to plenty "nationalist" type gatherings over the years and I have honestly never heard anyone say the hate anybody.
Lord Pitsligo

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Aventinian wrote:

Even the most civic-minded SNPers seem to be solidly anti-British.


Anti-British or anti-Britain?
Dave Coull

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Aventinian wrote:
great swathes of Scotland were covered by the people we'd call the Welsh today before the Scots ever showed up
I think it's a mistake to equate what was meant by "the Scots" in the Ninth Century with what is meant by "the Scots" today. Of course it's true that large parts of the country were covered by folk who spoke a language related to modern Welsh. It's also true that, in my own part of the country, some of my own ancestors were Pictish. Of course loads of us have Brythonic, Pictish, Saxon and Viking ancestors, and there were probably several other additions to the mixture of which we're not even aware. But so what? Luke P came on here with the specific intention of attacking the idea of independence for Scotland, which he is of course perfectly entitled to do. But he made a right mess of doing so, because he assumed (wrongly) that the desire for independence is based on race. He sought to "disprove" Scottishness by suggesting that most folk in Northumberland have much the same "ethnic" make-up. They probably do. So what?
Aventinian

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Aventinian wrote:

Even the most civic-minded SNPers seem to be solidly anti-British.


Anti-British or anti-Britain?


Both. The SNP seems very eager to insult, belittle and attempt to destroy British identity whenever it can.

Dave Coull wrote:
I think it's a mistake to equate what was meant by "the Scots" in the Ninth Century with what is meant by "the Scots" today. Of course it's true that large parts of the country were covered by folk who spoke a language related to modern Welsh. It's also true that, in my own part of the country, some of my own ancestors were Pictish. Of course loads of us have Brythonic, Pictish, Saxon and Viking ancestors, and there were probably several other additions to the mixture of which we're not even aware. But so what? Luke P came on here with the specific intention of attacking the idea of independence for Scotland, which he is of course perfectly entitled to do. But he made a right mess of doing so, because he assumed (wrongly) that the desire for independence is based on race. He sought to "disprove" Scottishness by suggesting that most folk in Northumberland have much the same "ethnic" make-up. They probably do. So what?


A fair post without the slightest hint of pedantry. I agree entirely.
Alasdair

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Aventinian wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Aventinian wrote:

Even the most civic-minded SNPers seem to be solidly anti-British.


Anti-British or anti-Britain?


Both. The SNP seems very eager to insult, belittle and attempt to destroy British identity whenever it can.


Not possible, British identity's a myth.  I have tried often enough to think of what makes up a British identity and everything I come up with seems to be more applicable to one of the constituent nations than all of them together ... maybe it's tea!?
Dave Coull

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Alasdair wrote:
I have tried often enough to think of what makes up a British identity and everything I come up with seems to be more applicable to one of the constituent nations than all of them together ... maybe it's tea!?
By coincidence, a couple of days ago my American wife was trying to think what other places, besides the UK, have such a fondness for tea. She couldn't think of any. "Ireland", I said. "They drink an awful lot of tea in the Republic of Ireland". To which my American responded "Well of course they do. It was British." So, yes, the fondness for tea does seem to be a "British" characteristic, but you can become independent and still like tea. As Ireland did.
Lord Pitsligo

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Aventinian wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Aventinian wrote:

Even the most civic-minded SNPers seem to be solidly anti-British.


Anti-British or anti-Britain?


Both. The SNP seems very eager to insult, belittle and attempt to destroy British identity whenever it can.


You're being vague, or stating the obvious.

Of course the SNP don't like the concept of Britain. They consider it to be a political arrangement which is not in Scotland's interest. They wish to end this arrangement so why would they be pro-Britain?
Aventinian

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Alasdair wrote:
Not possible, British identity's a myth.


And here we go... Rolling Eyes

It is something which the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom claim to possess. Are we all deluded?

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
You're being vague, or stating the obvious.

Of course the SNP don't like the concept of Britain. They consider it to be a political arrangement which is not in Scotland's interest. They wish to end this arrangement so why would they be pro-Britain?


Not being pro-something and being anti-something are two different things.

Moreover, being anti-British - opposed to British identity - is clearly intolerant and bigoted. As I've said before, that's why nationalism is not a consistent ideology: it involves making enemies of people who share your ideology, simply a different strain of it.
Luke P

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Dave Coull wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
great swathes of Scotland were covered by the people we'd call the Welsh today before the Scots ever showed up
I think it's a mistake to equate what was meant by "the Scots" in the Ninth Century with what is meant by "the Scots" today. Of course it's true that large parts of the country were covered by folk who spoke a language related to modern Welsh. It's also true that, in my own part of the country, some of my own ancestors were Pictish. Of course loads of us have Brythonic, Pictish, Saxon and Viking ancestors, and there were probably several other additions to the mixture of which we're not even aware. But so what? Luke P came on here with the specific intention of attacking the idea of independence for Scotland, which he is of course perfectly entitled to do. But he made a right mess of doing so, because he assumed (wrongly) that the desire for independence is based on race. He sought to "disprove" Scottishness by suggesting that most folk in Northumberland have much the same "ethnic" make-up. They probably do. So what?


Not necessarily trying to disprove Scottishness. If a group of people adhere to a concept, whatever it is, it becomes real by consent. On other posts I have tried to make a case for Britishness and point out that many of the arguments that are made for Scottish independence are fallacious and often hypocritical. Furthermore that independence can only be real outside the EU (if Scotland could achieve that - I'd move there!!!). Britishness is similarly, as real as people want it to be. It might require deconstructing much of the mental barriers between English, Scottish etc. Certainly maintaining separate football teams has done nothing to unite us. Remember that Napoleon and certain of the kings, united a far more diverse set of peoples (there are about 10 indigenous languages and dialects in France) under the mantle of "Frenchness", which is still going very strong.

Back to this particular thread - about Scotland's relationship to Wales and N.I. I have attempted to propose the idea of creating a better union rather than just giving up on the idea. That would involve actually resolving the grey areas in the constitution (such as exists), like formalising links between Wales, NI and Scotland in their own right. Cos it seems that if Scotland breaks with England, it breaks with Wales and NI by default and not through any particular deliberate act. Would Scotland like, for instance to create a kind of political Magners League - A UK without England?
Holebender

The whole point of the Scottish independence movement is a break from the UK, not from England. Far too many people, particularly in England, are far too obsessed with England and accord it far more importance than it merits.

The union can't be fixed because it is far too unbalanced.
Lord Pitsligo

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Aventinian wrote:
Alasdair wrote:
Not possible, British identity's a myth.


And here we go... Rolling Eyes

It is something which the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom claim to possess. Are we all deluded?


Do you base reality on how many people believe in something?

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
You're being vague, or stating the obvious.

Of course the SNP don't like the concept of Britain. They consider it to be a political arrangement which is not in Scotland's interest. They wish to end this arrangement so why would they be pro-Britain?


Not being pro-something and being anti-something are two different things.

Moreover, being anti-British - opposed to British identity - is clearly intolerant and bigoted. As I've said before, that's why nationalism is not a consistent ideology: it involves making enemies of people who share your ideology, simply a different strain of it.[/quote]

Utter nonsense about the Scottish nationalists. They may not be pro-British, but I have seen very little evidence in the real world of anti-Britishness from them. Nor does nationalism require making enemies.
Luke P

I agree that it is unbalanced, but not that England is accorded too much importance. It accounts for 84% of the population (a great many of them of Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry).

If Scotland (with 8% of the population) has its own government now, AND the leaders of the Westminster government are Scottish (PM, chancellor, home secretary) I would say that in fact it is Scotland that is being afforded too much importance!

If we could achieve, like I said before, the deconstruction of the barrier between English and Scottish etc, we would have a situation where there is only Britain, run by Brits, for Brits, it all becomes a non-issue.
Lord Pitsligo

Luke P wrote:
I agree that it is unbalanced, but not that England is accorded too much importance. It accounts for 84% of the population (a great many of them of Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry).


How many residents of Scotland are of English descent?

Quote:

If Scotland (with 8% of the population) has its own government now, AND the leaders of the Westminster government are Scottish (PM, chancellor, home secretary) I would say that in fact it is Scotland that is being afforded too much importance!


Or you could say that we have a democratically elected government and the demographics of it should not be any reflection on the Scottish people. Still, it makes a change from the 80s & early 90s.

Quote:

If we could achieve, like I said before, the deconstruction of the barrier between English and Scottish etc, we would have a situation where there is only Britain, run by Brits, for Brits, it all becomes a non-issue.


Westminster has constantly proved itself out of touch with Scotland. We tried for 300 years to make it work and it doesn't.
Luke P

Lord Pitsligo wrote:

Or you could say that we have a democratically elected government and the demographics of it should not be any reflection on the Scottish people. Still, it makes a change from the 80s & early 90s.


I personally don't have a problem with Scots running Westminster. What does bother me is the number of Scots who are still not happy. Pound for pound you could say that Scots are the most dominant bunch in British politics. LibDem and Labour leaders seem to be more often Scottish than not, going way back. For this reason, why Westminster should be out of touch with Scotland I do not know. I believe Scotland is proportionately overrepresented in Westminster per head of population.
Luke P

Lord Pitsligo wrote:

Westminster has constantly proved itself out of touch with Scotland. We tried for 300 years to make it work and it doesn't.


What yardstick are you using? In some ways it has worked magnificently. Industrial revolution, British Empire, Commonwealth...

Don't pretend Scotland could have done these things on its own, nor England for that matter.
Lord Pitsligo

Luke P wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:

Or you could say that we have a democratically elected government and the demographics of it should not be any reflection on the Scottish people. Still, it makes a change from the 80s & early 90s.


I personally don't have a problem with Scots running Westminster. What does bother me is the number of Scots who are still not happy. Pound for pound you could say that Scots are the most dominant bunch in British politics. LibDem and Labour leaders seem to be more often Scottish than not, going way back. For this reason, why Westminster should be out of touch with Scotland I do not know. I believe Scotland is proportionately overrepresented in Westminster per head of population.


So Scots all have universal political opinions do we? We all follow Gordon Brown & the badger?

I guess everyone in England was happy under Thatcher & Major.
Lord Pitsligo

Luke P wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:

Westminster has constantly proved itself out of touch with Scotland. We tried for 300 years to make it work and it doesn't.


What yardstick are you using? In some ways it has worked magnificently. Industrial revolution, British Empire, Commonwealth...

Don't pretend Scotland could have done these things on its own, nor England for that matter.


Well the Empire & Commonwealth are of no concern to me, but shall we look at more recent things, such as the poll tax, the entire 80s decade and, dare I mention it, oil?
Luke P

Lord Pitsligo wrote:


Well the Empire & Commonwealth are of no concern to me, but shall we look at more recent things, such as the poll tax, the entire 80s decade and, dare I mention it, oil?


They may be of no concern to you but like it or not it's what built your country. No-one like the poll tax - it was scrapped - get over it. As for oil (a recent discovery) am I to assume that your politics are based on grabbing all you can for yourself and running? I don't think selfishness wins you any friends.
Lord Pitsligo

Luke P wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:


Well the Empire & Commonwealth are of no concern to me, but shall we look at more recent things, such as the poll tax, the entire 80s decade and, dare I mention it, oil?


They may be of no concern to you but like it or not it's what built your country. No-one like the poll tax - it was scrapped - get over it. As for oil (a recent discovery) am I to assume that your politics are based on grabbing all you can for yourself and running? I don't think selfishness wins you any friends.


And delusions of being an empire are sucking my taxes away on pointless wars.

Now, when was the poll tax scrapped? After the Scots complained, or after the English complained?

As for the oil, which I am aware was a recent discovery (what was your point BTW?), you assume wrong.
Luke P

Lord Pitsligo wrote:

So Scots all have universal political opinions do we? We all follow Gordon Brown & the badger?

I guess everyone in England was happy under Thatcher & Major.


No of course not. Like I said - you could fill Westminster with 400 Scots, paint NUmber ten tartan - and you'd STILL not be happy - because I'm starting to think that not being happy is what you are actually about.

I checked this - proportions of Scottish leaders of the main British parties of all time:

Labour - 50%
Conservative 6.5%
Liberal (old) - 22%
Liberal Democrats - 67%
SNP - 100% Smile

From 8% of the population - that is very formidable over representation my friend. But once, again, this will be irrelevant to you if you just want to be unhappy...
Luke P

[quote="Lord Pitsligo"
As for the oil, which I am aware was a recent discovery (what was your point BTW?), you assume wrong.[/quote]

North Sea oil wealth is divided very equally among the board members of BP, Shell, Texaco and Exxon. They're very happy with the arrangement, and don't think it's making you or me rich...
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
I have tried to make a case for Britishness
So far, we've managed to identify ONE thing which appears to be (almost) distinctively "British". A fondness for drinking lots of tea. I say "almost" because they drink a lot of tea in the Republic of Ireland. So, apparently, there is no need to give up tea when a country becomes independent.

Historically speaking, the United Kingdom has  NEVER  been as complete a Union as  YOU  would like it to be. As I pointed out in discussion under another heading, at the time of the Union in 1707
Quote:
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.
As for Britishness being as real as people want it to be, let's face it, the high tide of Britishness was in the 19th and early 20th Century and it has been receding ever since.
Luke P wrote:
maintaining separate football teams has done nothing to unite us
Now you really are in fantasy land. Even at the very height of Britishness, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there wasn't a British international football team  The Scotland international football team is as old as international football as such. All attempts to create a "British" team are emphatically rejected by the fans. You are clutching at straws.
Luke P wrote:
Remember that Napoleon and certain of the kings, united a far more diverse set of peoples (there are about 10 indigenous languages and dialects in France) under the mantle of "Frenchness", which is still going very strong.
You're showing your ignorance of history.

Under the monarchy, there were strong Provinces, with powerful provincial aristocrats.

In the late 18th Century, when the King of France travelled through his realm, he had to take an interpreter with him. Not just for the likes of the Bretons, who spoke a totally un-related language, but for people who supposedly spoke "French". When the king went to the southern half of France, for instance, he needed an interpreter,  because he couldn't understand the "French" spoken there, and the people couldn't understand him.

What created both modern France and a uniform French language was the FRENCH  REVOLUTION.

Although the revolution had some good effects, it also had some not-so-good ones.

The French Revolution happened in 1789. Napoleon didn't take over until  TEN  YEARS  LATER. By that time, despite revolts in Brittany and elsewhere, the Provinces had been abolished and broken up into "departments", and France as a very uniform and highly centralised state had been established. For none of which can Napoleon be either credited or blamed. France has remained a very uniform and highly centralised state ever since the Revolution. But it took an awful lot of violence to achieve that end.
Luke P

Dave Coull wrote:
Luke P wrote:
I have tried to make a case for Britishness
So far, we've managed to identify ONE thing which appears to be (almost) distinctively "British". A fondness for drinking lots of tea. I say "almost" because they drink a lot of tea in the Republic of Ireland. So, apparently, there is no need to give up tea when a country becomes independent.

Historically speaking, the United Kingdom has  NEVER  been as complete a Union as  YOU  would like it to be. As I pointed out in discussion under another heading, at the time of the Union in 1707
Quote:
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.
As for Britishness being as real as people want it to be, let's face it, the high tide of Britishness was in the 19th and early 20th Century and it has been receding ever since.
Luke P wrote:
maintaining separate football teams has done nothing to unite us
Now you really are in fantasy land. Even at the very height of Britishness, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there wasn't a British international football team  The Scotland international football team is as old as international football as such. All attempts to create a "British" team are emphatically rejected by the fans. You are clutching at straws.
Luke P wrote:
Remember that Napoleon and certain of the kings, united a far more diverse set of peoples (there are about 10 indigenous languages and dialects in France) under the mantle of "Frenchness", which is still going very strong.
You're showing your ignorance of history.

Under the monarchy, there were strong Provinces, with powerful provincial aristocrats.

In the late 18th Century, when the King of France travelled through his realm, he had to take an interpreter with him. Not just for the likes of the Bretons, who spoke a totally un-related language, but for people who supposedly spoke "French". When the king went to the southern half of France, for instance, he needed an interpreter,  because he couldn't understand the "French" spoken there, and the people couldn't understand him.

What created both modern France and a uniform French language was the FRENCH  REVOLUTION.

Although the revolution had some good effects, it also had some not-so-good ones.

The French Revolution happened in 1789. Napoleon didn't take over until  TEN  YEARS  LATER. By that time, despite revolts in Brittany and elsewhere, the Provinces had been abolished and broken up into "departments", and France as a very uniform and highly centralised state had been established. For none of which can Napoleon be either credited or blamed. France has remained a very uniform and highly centralised state ever since the Revolution. But it took an awful lot of violence to achieve that end.


To an extent you are right. Do not forget the present form of France was pretty much in place before the revolution, or the code Napoleon of 1804 which reformed the whole French constitution. This is going horribly off topic.
Lord Pitsligo

Luke P wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:

So Scots all have universal political opinions do we? We all follow Gordon Brown & the badger?

I guess everyone in England was happy under Thatcher & Major.


No of course not. Like I said - you could fill Westminster with 400 Scots, paint NUmber ten tartan - and you'd STILL not be happy - because I'm starting to think that not being happy is what you are actually about.

I checked this - proportions of Scottish leaders of the main British parties of all time:

Labour - 50%
Conservative 6.5%
Liberal (old) - 22%
Liberal Democrats - 67%
SNP - 100% Smile

From 8% of the population - that is very formidable over representation my friend. But once, again, this will be irrelevant to you if you just want to be unhappy...


Ok, you're a troll, goodbye.
Luke P

What is a troll?
Aventinian

Re: Scotland's relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
Do you base reality on how many people believe in something?


When it is a matter of identity, which can only exist in the private realms of the human mind, then yes - of course I do.


Quote:
Utter nonsense about the Scottish nationalists. They may not be pro-British, but I have seen very little evidence in the real world of anti-Britishness from them.


What about the countless attacks on the Union Flag? Or the aforementioned belittling and slights against British identity? What about the assertions from senior SNP figures that Unionists and people with British identities are somehow traitors to Scotland?
Holebender

Oh? What assertions from senior SNP figures? Direct quotes please.
Dave Coull

I wrote:
France has remained a very uniform and highly centralised state ever since the Revolution. But it took an awful lot of violence to achieve that end.
Luke P wrote:
Do not forget the present form of France was pretty much in place before the revolution
Not true. France still had PROVINCES before the Revolution. The provinces were a reality, there were aristocrats for whom their importance in their province, and their influence amongst the people of their province, gave them a power base. The Revolution abolished the Provinces. Now, of course, folk do still speak about France having provinces, but as actual distinct administrative units they do not exist. They do not exist because the Revolution dismembered them, chopped them up and re-arranged things into Departments which bore no relation to the former provinces. What it took to achieve the present day centralised uniformity of France was the violent overthrow of the existing order.
Luke P

Dave Coull wrote:
I wrote:
France has remained a very uniform and highly centralised state ever since the Revolution. But it took an awful lot of violence to achieve that end.
Luke P wrote:
Do not forget the present form of France was pretty much in place before the revolution
Not true. France still had PROVINCES before the Revolution. The provinces were a reality, there were aristocrats for whom their importance in their province, and their influence amongst the people of their province, gave them a power base. The Revolution abolished the Provinces. Now, of course, folk do still speak about France having provinces, but as actual distinct administrative units they do not exist. They do not exist because the Revolution dismembered them, chopped them up and re-arranged things into Departments which bore no relation to the former provinces. What it took to achieve the present day centralised uniformity of France was the violent overthrow of the existing order.


You are right about that, but I was talking about the shape of France - ie. the territory was in place. You are correct about the reforms post-revolution, but the icing on the cake was the 1804 Code Napoleon which included the very significant clauses:
All equal under the law (including nobility and clergy) and the end of the feudal system. In fact centralising reforms have never stopped in France, esp. under Napoleon III and even the Vichy govt that chopped Brittany in half...
We at least agree on the fundamental point that France is French. Vive la difference...
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
France is French. Vive la difference...
The French state doesn't like difference.............
Dave Coull

Going back to the original topic, Scotland's relationships with Wales and with Northern Ireland, I think the answer is that an independent Scotland will seek, while running our own affairs, to be on warm and friendly terms with all of our neighbours. I certainly can't see an independent Scotland imposing any kind of restrictions on movement from the neighbours. Maybe the United Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (or whatever they decide to call it) will continue indefinitely, more or less unchanged, without Scotland. Or maybe Wales will become independent, one of these centuries. Maybe there will even be a united Ireland, one of these millenia. And there was an English Republic once before, maybe there will be once again, who knows? But whatever the people of Wales, and of Northern Ireland, and of England, do, I think the attitude of official Scotland will be one of friendly interest but non-interference. Oh, and by the way, despite what I said about the French state not liking difference, I can't see any Scottish government getting involved in supporting Breton nationalists or anything like that. It is possible that home rule movements of various kinds in various places might take some sort of encouragement from the example of an independent Scotland, but I don't think there would be the slightest chance of any Scottish government giving such movements any kind of official support.
Aventinian

Holebender wrote:
Oh? What assertions from senior SNP figures? Direct quotes please.


How about we start with Winnie Ewing, who shared a platform with John Swinney at a Bannockburn rally in 2003 and said (to rapturous applause, no doubt):

"The enemies of Scotland are not the English, as one of our founders RB Cunningham Grahame said, they are in fact well disposed towards us. The enemies of Scotland are the traitors within the gate, the unionist parties who, whilst claiming to be Scottish, don’t wish for their country the normal freedom that every world citizen expects for their country."

For all to see, it's posted on the SNP website: http://www.snp.org/node/11859

Or how about Alex Salmond's talk of "Whitehall's duplicity and trickery in its desperate desire to cheat Scotland"?
Mctosh45

Aventinian,

What a creep you are.

You're a "child of a lesser God" so get over it! Laughing  Laughing
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
What is a troll?
I asked the very same question, the first time I came across the term. Somebody called  ME  a troll, and I honestly didn't know what it meant, because I just wasn't very familiar with internet terminology.

The reaction to me asking "What is a troll?" was "You know perfectly well, you troll !".  But I didn't.

Although I never did get it properly explained to me, I later gathered, from the contexts in which I saw the term used,  that it means something like, a person who goes on internet discussion groups, not to learn anything, and not really in order to try to persuade other folk to see their point of view, but with the deliberate intention of causing offense, because they get their thrills from provoking an outraged reaction. Now, it's a fact that such people do exist. The very first post which I saw from you, in which you (falsely) claimed to be a Northumbrian Nationalist who was demanding the "return" of the Lothians, would be regarded as "trolling" by many folk.

I personally  NEVER  use the term "troll" about anybody, even when it seems to be thoroughly justified. The reason I never use it is because it has been applied to myself on several occasions, on several different forums. Now, I know for certain that, however much folk may have objected to what I was saying, and however much they may have disliked the way that I said it, I was just expressing my honest opinion, and even hoping (in my wildly optimistic way) to be able to get folk to see my point of view. So, since I know that the term "troll" was mis-used in my case, I give other folk the benefit of the doubt, just in case, even when it seems obvious that they are just "trolling".
Lord Pitsligo

Dave Coull wrote:
So, since I know that the term "troll" was mis-used in my case, I give other folk the benefit of the doubt, even when it seems obvious that they are just "trolling".


It was the "unhappy" comments that earnt it from me. I felt like I was being poked with a stick.
chicmac

Aventinian wrote:
Holebender wrote:
Oh? What assertions from senior SNP figures? Direct quotes please.


How about we start with Winnie Ewing, who shared a platform with John Swinney at a Bannockburn rally in 2003 and said (to rapturous applause, no doubt):

"The enemies of Scotland are not the English, as one of our founders RB Cunningham Grahame said, they are in fact well disposed towards us. The enemies of Scotland are the traitors within the gate, the unionist parties who, whilst claiming to be Scottish, don’t wish for their country the normal freedom that every world citizen expects for their country."

For all to see, it's posted on the SNP website: http://www.snp.org/node/11859

Or how about Alex Salmond's talk of "Whitehall's duplicity and trickery in its desperate desire to cheat Scotland"?


The quote you give in no way portrays anti-Britishness, unless, as I suspect, you are making the error of conflating Unionism with Britishness.

However, even if every constituent country of the UK became a nation state in its own right, Britishness would still exist, would still have meaning. Winnie's quote does not contradict that.

Say someone mentioned a European country called Falseland that you had neverheard of.  You wouldn't have any ideas about it really, but if they said it was Scandanavian then immediately you would have some expectations as to what it might be like culturally.  Similarly if it was described as being somewhere on the American Continent, again this would be too vague to have useful meaning, but if it were described as Latin American then again you would have a much clearer, more meaningful idea about it.  Lots of other examples, e.g. Carribean, Arabian, etc.  

And of course if you were told it were in the British Isles then that too would conjure up real cultural meaning for Falseland in the minds of others and with no regard to the political arrangements within the British Isles.

Britishness does not require Union and being anti Union does not mean someone is anti British.

In fact I'm fairly certain that most Scots will feel more British in its more meaningful sense, rather than less, after independence.
malcolmtucker

[quote="Luke P"]What is a troll?[/quote]

it goes like this. first you are called a troll, you have disagreed with the 'movers and shakers' on this board. then you will be called a racist and bnp supporter, this makes the 'movers and shakers' feel better about themselves whilst writing you off as crank ( how easy is that to work out - ME GOOD.YOU BAD - basic psychology). then your posts will be screened for approval because these liberal folks believe in freedom of speech and have no concept of intolerance so long as you agree with them.

hope this helps.i worked it out years ago.
Luke P

Dave Coull wrote:
So far, we've managed to identify ONE thing which appears to be (almost) distinctively "British". A fondness for drinking lots of tea. I say "almost" because they drink a lot of tea in the Republic of Ireland. So, apparently, there is no need to give up tea when a country becomes independent.


The same religion, the same language, the same rain, the same greasy chips, driving on the left, the pound...? You make is sound like we're Chinese and Ugandans or something...

In any case, tea is Chinese.
Lord Pitsligo

Luke P wrote:

The same religion, the same language, the same rain, the same greasy chips, driving on the left, the pound...? You make is sound like we're Chinese and Ugandans or something...

In any case, tea is Chinese.


Same religion? Which one is that? Church of Scotland?

Same language? So does America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc

The same rain? Ok, so we usually get theirs, but that's just something to sell back to them after independence  Laughing

Same greasy chips? But not the same mushy peas.

Driving on the left? Us and a whole bunch of other countries.

The pound? Soon to be the Euro maybe?
Dave Coull

I wrote:
So far, we've managed to identify ONE thing which appears to be (almost) distinctively "British". A fondness for drinking lots of tea. I say "almost" because they drink a lot of tea in the Republic of Ireland. So, apparently, there is no need to give up tea when a country becomes independent.
Luke P wrote:
tea is Chinese.
There's not a lot of enthusiasm for the taste of Chinese tea in the British Isles. The vast majority of tea drinkers in the British Isles drink Indian or Sri Lankan tea. They drink it with milk, and very often with sugar too. This British way of tea drinking is not widely shared outside the British Isles. Amongst the upper classes and the aspiring upper classes i the British Isles there is some enthusiasm for the likes of Earl Gray tea. But here in Scotland most of us consider Earl Grey far too peely-wally. We like our tea strong. I think that's true in much of England, Ireland, and Wales also. On my visits to the USA, I discovered why Americans think tea drinking is "weaker" than coffee. It is because the kind of tea THEY serve up is helluva peely-wally. They just don't know what tea is supposed to be like. Next time I go there, I'm taking my own supply with me.
Luke P wrote:
The same religion
Queen Elizabeth officially changes her religion when she crosses the Scottish border. She ceases to be an episcopalian, and becomes a presbyterian instead. In England, she is episcopalian, and in fact she is Head of the Church of England. However, when she crosses the border into Scotland, she ceases to be episcopalian, and she ceases to be the Head of the church. She becomes a mere member of the Church of Scotland, which is presbyterian. The Scottish equivelant of the Church of England is the Scottish Episcopal Church. The Queen  NEVER  attends a service of the Episcopal church when she is in Scotland. Nor do any of the royal family. When she is in Scotland, every Sunday, the queen attends a service of the C of S. Now, you might argue that this is a historical anachronism. Just try changing it, and you'll soon find out just how many people will resist you changing that anachronism.
Luke P wrote:
the same language
the same language as the USA. So why aren't we part of the USA?
Luke P wrote:
the same rain
Now you're clutching at straws. Wet ones, at that.
Luke P wrote:
the same greasy chips
It's quite a few years now since curry replaced chips as the most popular British take-away
Luke P wrote:
driving on the left
A governmental decision, not a cultural one. In any case, the Republic of Ireland also drives on the left, so the question of left or right has nothing to do with independence or union.
Luke P wrote:
the pound
English banknotes in pounds are accepted in Scotland, yet Scottish banknotes in pounds are often refused in England.
Holebender

Driving on the left? Maybe we're all secretly Japanese!
Luke P

Well, my point being, the drive from Carlisle to Gretna is not like the drive from Gaza to Tel Aviv.
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
my point being, the drive from Carlisle to Gretna is not like the drive from Gaza to Tel Aviv.
Who said it was?
babykitten

Luke P wrote:
Well, my point being, the drive from Carlisle to Gretna is not like the drive from Gaza to Tel Aviv.


The implication being, of course, that with Scotland independent it soon would be.  More scaremongering.

Luke, why can't you just accept that the vast majority of people who support independence for Scotland are normal, sensible people who simply want better governance, closer to home, more accountable to the people and more sensitive to the peculiarities of the Scottish 'system'?  Nobody of any significance wants the isolation or insularity or separatism that is so often thrown our way.  These are fictions.

You list a whole lot of things that make us all British, but not one of those would change due to an independent Scotland.  We will all still have rain, we will all still like fish and chips (but prefer haddock to cod here, probably), we will all still drink tea.  Scots will still travel to England and vice versa and we will have a mature relationship as cooperative neighbours.

As for the pound, we will all still use the pound, at least initially.  As others have said though, we may all be using the Euro soon enough anyway.
Holebender

So, if a common currency is a sign of sameness, is Ireland part of Greece, or is Greece part of Ireland?
Fidget

Hasn't wee Eck, himself, now postponed any referendum on independence til after the next elections?
Holebender

Wee Eck is a member of the SNP. The SNP has a manifesto commitment to introducing a referendum bill in 2010. One member can't change policy by himself, no matter who he is.

Where did you get this silly idea from?
Fidget

I see.. gone from having a referendum in 2010 to introducing a referendum in 2010. Will the SNP be having a referendum on Scottish independence or not in 2010? Not, by the sounds of it, despite its election manifesto.

What's its problem? Just have the damn thing and go on what the majority of the people say.  Oh.. it's scared cause it knows it'll get thumped.  That's why it's not having its referendum.  

To think Scottish Nats bleat on about Brown shying away from an election the other year heh heh!
Alasdair

Stop being thick fidget.  the referendum won't pass without the support of the unionists who aren't about to support it.  No matter how much the SNP want it to happen the unionist parties won't let it happen, so who's scared of getting thumped?

This is a ridiculous arguement having been played out everywhere else already.  It's funny the wee thing under your name says 'no longer a wean' ... I have my doubts.
Fidget

Holebender wrote:

Independence is about maturity and taking care of your own business, not about hating anything.


Could've fooled me. Any time anybody mentions anything not suiting the eyes/ears of nationalists they launch an assault.  What's that all about? Quite the opposite of maturity and taking care of your own business mind you.
Dave Coull

Fidget asked "babykitten"
Quote:
Who's Dave Coull btw? You shaggin him?
Fidget asked  me
Quote:
Do you have a lisp
Fidget wrote:
Quite the opposite of maturity
Yes, the way that Fidget avoids discussing the real issues, and descends to personal innuendos, is quite the opposite of maturity.
mal

[quote="Fidget"]
Holebender wrote:

Independence is about maturity and taking care of your own business, not about hating anything.


Could've fooled me. Any time anybody mentions anything not suiting the eyes/ears of nationalists they launch an assault. quote]

Laughing  Laughing Get a grip!

Assault  Laughing  Laughing
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget asked "babykitten"
Quote:
Who's Dave Coull btw? You shaggin him?
Fidget asked  me
Quote:
Do you have a lisp
Fidget wrote:
Quite the opposite of maturity
Yes, the way that Fidget avoids discussing the real issues, and descends to personal innuendos, is quite the opposite of maturity.


I wasn't even talking to you and you can't help but put your neb in!  
Fidget

[quote="mal"]
Fidget wrote:
Holebender wrote:

Independence is about maturity and taking care of your own business, not about hating anything.


Could've fooled me. Any time anybody mentions anything not suiting the eyes/ears of nationalists they launch an assault. quote]

Laughing  Laughing Get a grip!

Assault  Laughing  Laughing


Oh it is. Dare say anything that their eyes don't like and woe betide.  Laughing
Dave Coull

Fidget asked "babykitten"

Quote:
Who's Dave Coull btw? You shaggin him?

but now Fidget says

Quote:

I wasn't even talking to you

No, you were talking ABOUT me.

This is a public forum. It doesn't matter who you were talking to. Anybody can comment on anything anybody says. And yes, it's true the way Fidget avoids discussing the real issues by descending to personal innuendos is the opposite of maturity.
mal

[quote="Fidget"]
mal wrote:
Fidget wrote:
Holebender wrote:

Independence is about maturity and taking care of your own business, not about hating anything.


Could've fooled me. Any time anybody mentions anything not suiting the eyes/ears of nationalists they launch an assault. quote]

Laughing  Laughing Get a grip!

Assault  Laughing  Laughing


Oh it is. Dare say anything that their eyes don't like and woe betide.  Laughing


What it is,is putting their point of view across to dispell the crap that Unionists propagate,the meally mouthed crap spun by the likes of Murphy amply helped by the BBC`s interpretation of impartiality .

If you take that as an assault you`ve had a sheltered life.
Fidget

Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget asked "babykitten"

Quote:
Who's Dave Coull btw? You shaggin him?

but now Fidget says

Quote:

I wasn't even talking to you

No, you were talking ABOUT me.

This is a public forum. It doesn't matter who you were talking to. Anybody can comment on anything anybody says. And yes, it's true the way Fidget avoids discussing the real issues by descending to personal innuendos is the opposite of maturity.


dry yer eyes, diddums.  Rolling Eyes
Cruachan

The quality and relevance of recent posts/posters is dropping by the minute. Embarassed  Sad
Are the moderators on holiday?


t Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2009 12:18 pm    Post subject:  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Coull wrote:
Fidget asked "babykitten"

Quote:
Who's Dave Coull btw? You shaggin him?

but now Fidget says

Quote:

I wasn't even talking to you

No, you were talking ABOUT me.

This is a public forum. It doesn't matter who you were talking to. Anybody can comment on anything anybody says. And yes, it's true the way Fidget avoids discussing the real issues by descending to personal innuendos is the opposite of maturity.


dry yer eyes, diddums.
azzuri

Cruachan wrote:
The quality and relevance of recent posts/posters is dropping by the minute. Embarassed  Sad
Are the moderators on holiday?


No, it's just that generally censorship doesn't work very well. We only enforce censorship in extreme cases. If someone is acting like a complete prick, it's pointless censoring them, as it's easier to let them make a complete arse of themselves, everyone can see it clearly.
Cruachan

azzuri wrote:
Cruachan wrote:
The quality and relevance of recent posts/posters is dropping by the minute. Embarassed  Sad
Are the moderators on holiday?


No, it's just that generally censorship doesn't work very well. We only enforce censorship in extreme cases. If someone is acting like a complete prick, it's pointless censoring them, as it's easier to let them make a complete arse of themselves, everyone can see it clearly.


Agreed, and self regulation with a few moderator hits from time to time usually does the trick.  You can't legislate for idiots.  Anyway I'm off for my own holidays, so I'll leave them to it for a while.
Luke P

babykitten wrote:
Luke P wrote:
Well, my point being, the drive from Carlisle to Gretna is not like the drive from Gaza to Tel Aviv.


The implication being, of course, that with Scotland independent it soon would be.  More scaremongering.

No. Your interpretation. I'm merely stating the point that it's not all that different. There is a lot of commonality, which people downplay/dismiss.

Luke, why can't you just accept that the vast majority of people who support independence for Scotland are normal, sensible people who simply want better governance, closer to home, more accountable to the people and more sensitive to the peculiarities of the Scottish 'system'?  Nobody of any significance wants the isolation or insularity or separatism that is so often thrown our way.  These are fictions.

You list a whole lot of things that make us all British, but not one of those would change due to an independent Scotland.  We will all still have rain, we will all still like fish and chips (but prefer haddock to cod here, probably), we will all still drink tea.  Scots will still travel to England and vice versa and we will have a mature relationship as cooperative neighbours.

As for the pound, we will all still use the pound, at least initially.  As others have said though, we may all be using the Euro soon enough anyway.


I do understand that point of view, which is in fairness often sullied, by a) the rabid anti-English minority and b) those who mistakenly believe Scotland can be independent within the EU. These two stumbling blocks aside I might even support Scottish independence myself.
Holebender

What is for 100% certain is that Scotland cannot be independent within the UK. Scotland cannot decide on its EU membership as long as it is part of the UK, it can only do what the UK majority decides. The only way Scotland's electorate can have their say on such things as EU membership, and have their say respected is by Scotland becoming independent from the UK.
Luke P



Getting back to the original topic. The picture above shows Welsh colonists in Chubut Province, Argentina celebrating their Welsh roots with a bout of costume wearing, and... your eyes aren't deceiving you, a Scots piper. Now, if any evidence were needed for the Scots-Welsh affinity here it is.

For those who say Britishness does not exists one needs only to look abroad, where differences that at home seem gargantuan, seem to pale into insignificance when confronted with the 'foreign'.
Holebender

An alternative explanation is that these people are three or more generations removed from their ethnic homeland and they actually have very little idea about what is (in this case) Welsh and what isn't.
Cymro

Luke P wrote:
It's incredible no-one wants to answer this simple question - apart from one very informed answer (thank you) - but just denigrate my question and me... I am curious that Scots "nationalists" should feel no affinity for the rest of the people of the UK despite being to a large extent, close kin...

In my opinion the union was a half-baked compromise that was never fully resolved and it's really no surprise it is falling apart, but perhaps the UK could survive if such issues as the relationship between Scotland and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could be defined....

(And sorry - to those who think the UK was too centralised - 1) not any more 2) The UK is really a very small country, look at a map.


Well as a Welsh Nationalist I have no problem with Scots, I have so little problem with them I ended up marrying one of them, she's now living down here in Wales with me. Do I hate her for not being Welsh? Of course not. One day we'll live in Scotland, I'll still be a proud Welshman who strongly believes in the end of the Union though.

As for your comments that Australia, New Zeland are as part of the UK as they can be, you clearly know bugger all about the history of these countries along with your lack of knowledge about the true nature of Scottish or Welsh nationalism.
Luke P

Cymro wrote:
Luke P wrote:
It's incredible no-one wants to answer this simple question - apart from one very informed answer (thank you) - but just denigrate my question and me... I am curious that Scots "nationalists" should feel no affinity for the rest of the people of the UK despite being to a large extent, close kin...

In my opinion the union was a half-baked compromise that was never fully resolved and it's really no surprise it is falling apart, but perhaps the UK could survive if such issues as the relationship between Scotland and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could be defined....

(And sorry - to those who think the UK was too centralised - 1) not any more 2) The UK is really a very small country, look at a map.


Well as a Welsh Nationalist I have no problem with Scots, I have so little problem with them I ended up marrying one of them, she's now living down here in Wales with me. Do I hate her for not being Welsh? Of course not. One day we'll live in Scotland, I'll still be a proud Welshman who strongly believes in the end of the Union though.

As for your comments that Australia, New Zeland are as part of the UK as they can be, you clearly know bugger all about the history of these countries along with your lack of knowledge about the true nature of Scottish or Welsh nationalism.


What I think you meant was you disagree with me.
Luke P

Holebender wrote:
An alternative explanation is that these people are three or more generations removed from their ethnic homeland and they actually have very little idea about what is (in this case) Welsh and what isn't.


Possibly, but they didn't get a German Oompah band along did they? (Plenty of them in Argentina) And that is a little bit of an insult to the Welsh Patagonians who have remained rather proud of their roots and language.
Cymro

Luke P wrote:
Cymro wrote:
Luke P wrote:
It's incredible no-one wants to answer this simple question - apart from one very informed answer (thank you) - but just denigrate my question and me... I am curious that Scots "nationalists" should feel no affinity for the rest of the people of the UK despite being to a large extent, close kin...

In my opinion the union was a half-baked compromise that was never fully resolved and it's really no surprise it is falling apart, but perhaps the UK could survive if such issues as the relationship between Scotland and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could be defined....

(And sorry - to those who think the UK was too centralised - 1) not any more 2) The UK is really a very small country, look at a map.


Well as a Welsh Nationalist I have no problem with Scots, I have so little problem with them I ended up marrying one of them, she's now living down here in Wales with me. Do I hate her for not being Welsh? Of course not. One day we'll live in Scotland, I'll still be a proud Welshman who strongly believes in the end of the Union though.

As for your comments that Australia, New Zeland are as part of the UK as they can be, you clearly know bugger all about the history of these countries along with your lack of knowledge about the true nature of Scottish or Welsh nationalism.


What I think you meant was you disagree with me.


No s**t sherlock, and it speaks volumes that you are unable to counter it. Go back to sticking crayons up your nose little boy
Corby Boy

Luke P.

True you draw affinity parallels with Northern Ireland and Scotland and Wales and Scotland.

These are very real and strong in some cases and are essentially social in nature.

Where the problem lies in the case of the Ulster Scots, is that they existence instrinsically lies within unionism as a whole in the 6 counties. Therefore opposite to the aims of Scots indpendence.

Wales - the celtic affinity is there, and their destiny re: union or no, is entirely up to them as a nation. End of story.
Corby Boy

So, no a union with NI and Wales is a non-starter. Most folk recognise that as such. Affinity will always be there, and to some extent with England too, post independence.
Dave Coull

Many years ago, I worked for a few months in the steelworks at Corby. I knew a lot of other Scots had gone down to work in the steelworks there, but I hadn't realised until I got there just how "Scottish" Corby was. Apart from recent immigrants like myself, a significant percentage of the population of Corby were Scots, and even many of the second generation born in that part of Northamptonshire considered themselves Scottish. However, although it may get called "Little Scotland", it's still in England. I wouldn't make any "claim" for Corby. But I do understand where "Corby Boy" is coming from.......
Corby Boy wrote:
Where the problem lies in the case of the Ulster Scots, is that they existence instrinsically lies within unionism
It's true the Ulster Scots identity has come to be seen as identified with unionism, but there is nothing intrinsically unionist about it. The very first republican organisation in Ireland seeking to "break the connection with England", the United Irishmen, was formed by a group of protestants, mostly presbyterians of Scottish descent, in Belfast, in 1791.

About ten years ago, through my wife, I became friendly with a young Ulsterman with a very Scottish name. He had come to Scotland to study and ended up staying here. He became an enthusiastic supporter of independence for Scotland, and even a republican, in the sense of wanting to do away with the monarchy. But not "republican" in the Northern Ireland sense  -  he had seen too many people killed by the IRA, and he remained strongly opposed to them. He told me he thought there were plenty of others like himself amongst the protestant community in Ulster, folk who had no great attachment to the Crown or to the Union as such, but who were hostile towards what "nationalism" and "republicanism" has come to mean in Ireland.

It may take a very long time for entrenched attitudes to fade, but it remains true that there is nothing intrinsically unionist about the Ulster Scots identity.
Luke P

Cymro wrote:
Luke P wrote:
Cymro wrote:
Luke P wrote:
It's incredible no-one wants to answer this simple question - apart from one very informed answer (thank you) - but just denigrate my question and me... I am curious that Scots "nationalists" should feel no affinity for the rest of the people of the UK despite being to a large extent, close kin...

In my opinion the union was a half-baked compromise that was never fully resolved and it's really no surprise it is falling apart, but perhaps the UK could survive if such issues as the relationship between Scotland and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could be defined....

(And sorry - to those who think the UK was too centralised - 1) not any more 2) The UK is really a very small country, look at a map.


Well as a Welsh Nationalist I have no problem with Scots, I have so little problem with them I ended up marrying one of them, she's now living down here in Wales with me. Do I hate her for not being Welsh? Of course not. One day we'll live in Scotland, I'll still be a proud Welshman who strongly believes in the end of the Union though.

As for your comments that Australia, New Zeland are as part of the UK as they can be, you clearly know bugger all about the history of these countries along with your lack of knowledge about the true nature of Scottish or Welsh nationalism.


What I think you meant was you disagree with me.


No s**t sherlock, and it speaks volumes that you are unable to counter it. Go back to sticking crayons up your nose little boy


Why are you offended? What is the c**p about crayons? Your point of view could have been very valuable to this topic but you come across as a bigot.
Luke P

For anyone who has been to Wales or Northern Ireland...

Did/do you feel like a stranger in a strange land?

Is it like being, say, in France or Denmark?

Do you not feel yourself to be in 'your country'?
Dave Coull

Luke P wrote:
For anyone who has been to Wales or Northern Ireland...
Did/do you feel like a stranger in a strange land?
I once spent a couple of weeks in Wales. I stayed at Llandanwg. Not all that far from Harlech, which we visited. I found that couple of weeks rather confusing. I saw quite a few signs pointing to some place called Llwybwr Ceohuddus. But although I saw lots of signs pointing to this place, these signs all seemed to point in different directions. I know the saying, all roads lead to Rome, but was it a case of, in Wales, all roads lead to Llwybwr Ceohuddus?

Towards the end of that fortnight in Wales, I finally figured out that it meant "public footpath".
Luke P

lol
Corby Boy

Dave,

Ok, I stand alittle corrected - however, mainstream Ulster Scots politic's today is heavily linked to unionism.

I agree with you re: the history of presbyterianism in Ireland is very much linked to the United Irishmen movement in c18th.

However, today the majority of spokespeople and politician in the 'Ulster Scots' community are unionist. This as you have pointed out may not be true of individuals. So, I may have been sloppy with the word 'intrinsically' but in my view the thread of what I say re; unionism and Ulster Scots is true.

The realisation of Scottish independence may change this of course over time, as the bonds that tie are shaken loose and they determine their own place in the world. Although on P.ie political website, many commentators believe the NI unionists irrespective of their cultural history will still cling to the rump UK - England, Wales, NI. Time will tell on that one.

Your comments re: Corby are accurate. The're many first generation Scots living all over England (and the world of course, including Wales and NI) who feel Scottish rather than the nationality of their birth country. For this reason among others, a form of social affiliation will continue post independence between Scotland and England. The concept of alien nations, with border posts, is purely unionist scare mongering, no more.
mairead

I certainly do not hate the Welsh, or the Irish, or the Cornish, or the English. Just because I am very much pro-Scotland does't mean I hate any other part of this UK.
Scots who hate other parts of the UK, are very much a minority.
What I do hate with a vengeance, is the conniving, thieving, lying Westminster government and this useless, anti Scottish Union.
Luke P

Hoots man. I'd love to see your grievance list. Loadsa people south of the border hate the lying thieving Westminster government too, but oops (dare I say it) they are Scottish (but that's not why we hate them). Don't think devolution was very anti-Scottish...

Anyway, it would be interesting to hear an Ulster Scots unionist's view on Scottish independence as it substantially weakens his hand. Breaking the UK up leaves him facing limbo, or the ultimate horror, unification with Eire. I don't see a United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland working for very long.
Holebender

You may not think devolution anti-Scottish, but what do you know?

It was supposed to defeat the Scottish independence movement and, as such, was against the interests of Scotland. It was designed to preserve the UK so, in my opinion, was and is anti-Scottish.
Luke P

In some quarters it may have been. Who listens to George Robertson?

I never met a Scots Nat who was anti-devolution - you are the first. If devolution is against the interests of Scotland - WHY AREN'T YOU CLAMOURING TO SHUT DOWN HOLYROOD?

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics