| 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. |
| cuthill76 |
The unionist positionTo the unionists.Can you please clarify your position on why being part of the Union is a good thing? Can you please do this by providing tangible reasons and please avoid simply negative attacks on the nationalist position. I am interesting in hearing unionist arguements that address items such as: 1. Levels of social deprevation in urban areas 2. Continuing rural depopulation 3. Why Scotland compares so poorly to other similiar European countries 4. Reasons why an oil fund is a bad idea or not required It seems to me that although some people may not like the nationalist position at least it offers a positive outlook for the country and unfortunately that is far more than can be said of any of the unionist parties. From my point of view it seems to be vote Lab/Con/Lib get more of the same. What have they done in the last 50 years? Yeh sure everybody is better off but that's called progress in the 1st world and why is that we still trail behind countries such as Norway? Finally why is it that the bulk of arguments in favour of the union tend to be scare stories? Commonly of the you are too wee / too stupid variety, which are incredible insulting to say the least. Perhaps someone from the unionist side can add something positive to encourage debate. Thanks, Iain |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
I'm not a unionist Iain, but it sounds like you've already made your mind up! | ||||||||
| Stevie |
If you are to hear the unionists' arguments on the positive aspects of the union, I think we should address the current state of their thinking :
I've no doubt Aventinian will wax lyrical and we'll have one of his treatise on the evils of nationalism and the benefits of the status quo (Brit talk for 'I'm a Brit Nat') but ultimately let's look at the three Brit parties : LABOUR the Labour party did a great thing by pushing a national health service into being not long after WWII. Currently, however, they seem to be trying to embrace the wily ways of Thatcherism and are desperate to privatize it but don't know how to get away with it. So, really, since the NHS and some development of council housing and social care (the norm throughout most European countries) the Labour party have become the Monty Python dead budgie of politics. The voters know it; the trade union movement knows it and they know it. This budgie is dead. No it' isn't. Yes it is. (picks up budgie and hits it against the pet shop sales counter) Dead, dead, dead! The 1970s argument (of which Neil Kinnock was fond of shouting) was that a larger British union would have more power than a smaller English or Scottish union to demand rights, conditions and pay. This is of course historic and was destroyed during Thatcher's era and Blair's too come to that. GB is strangling the trade unions with his wide range of blue ties as we speak. TORIES The Tories, well, they are the CBI's plaything and their 'Days of Empire' dreaming Brits. The least said about their machinations the better. Suffice to say, Thatcher was the wart on their face but it is still their face. Curiously, they're a fairly powerless lot in some ways because they represent a particular proportion of the population (mostly the English population at the moment) and they don't really have a message that is for the large majority of the population. They will oppose the break up of the union till Queen Victoria is resurrected from the dead. LIBDEMS Th LibDems... don't really know what to make of them. They strike me as closet Tories that don't quite have the heart to join the Thatcherite legions and they simply can't stand those horrible common Labour chaps. So getting an argument in favour of the union has to based on these preconceptions. |
||||||||
| landg |
Re: The unionist position
tbh it's not worth the hassle or the time. but i've seen or heard nothing from nationalists to suggest anything would be any different never mind better. and stop with the wee/stupid crap. it's a nationalist mind trick and manipulation. |
||||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Re: The unionist position
e.g. There are no good reasons for the Union 
|
||||||||
| Stevie |
Re: The unionist position
I see we're in a pleasant mood this evening. No, it's not a nationalists' mind trick; the last Holyrood elections allowed the Labour party to insult the Scots with this very line of attack (which proved irritating to the Scots... they never learn). So you've decided to start saying it's the nationalists who are inventing stuff... No need to dear landg, no need to. |
||||||||
| Fidget |
Re: The unionist position
1. This will be a thing of the past in an Independent Scotland. 2. This will be a thing of the past in an Independent Scotland. 3. This will be a thing of the past in an Independent Scotland. 4. This will be a thing of the past in an Independent Scotland. Not much of an argument addressing any of the points, I agree. But it is the answers you are thinking. |
||||||||
| Stevie |
The usual positive waves emanating from the onionists. | ||||||||
| Red Justice |
I am pissed off. Can I tell you I support independence for Scotland and I am a socialist. | ||||||||
| Kevin |
I support Scottish independence, despite not living in Scotland, and I am a capitalist. 
|
||||||||
| Alasdair |
yup there are are miriad of dreams for an independent scotland, the end will be a compromise based on the democratic process. | ||||||||
| landg |
i'am also a capitalist. socialism died many years ago, never to return thankfully. | ||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Re: The unionist position
In reality maybe only about 10 to 20% of Scotland's population can sensibly be viewed as unionist (i.e believe that the UK is the nation and Scotland is only a region and oppose separate national government in Scotland on that basis as they would prefer a conventional unitary British nation state), while only another 20 to 25% can sensibly be viewed as nationalist (i.e. completely reject the UK and prefer an independent Scottish nation state). Most people in Scotland can comfortably accomodate a high level of ambiguity as to what represents the nation (my avatar is a classic manifestation of that from the 74 World Cup finals in West Germany) and are pragmatic (i.e. open to persuasion either way) on the question of independence. I'd place myself firmly in the pragmatist category personally and don't altogether appreciate it when I get pigeon-holed as a "(u/U)nionist" on here by people who like to see everything as being neatly polarised in nationalist vs unionist terms and stereotype people on that basis. I don't believe that independence would make much difference where urban deprivation and rural depopulation are concerned. Might help a bit but I don't believe there is a magic wand available based on the location of the national capital that can suddenly solve problems that arise primarily from changes in the global economy. I also see no reason why Scotland couldn't have an oil fund in the context of the UK when Alberta is able to do it as a province of Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Fund If the Barnett Formula ever gets scrapped and Holyrood is expected to fund itself from taxation raised in Scotland on the basis of fiscal autonomy rather than through a block grant from overall UK taxation an oil fund could emerge down the road. |
||||||||
| landg |
Re: The unionist position
60-70% vote for unioists parties = 20% are only really unionists. 30-40% vote for independence oarties = 25% are only really nationalists. that is a quite stunning piece of spin. |
||||||||
| Stevie |
Capitalism has a limited lifespan, it just cost the taxpayer £170 billion... it'll die and be replaced with a form of socialism (albeit weak). |
||||||||
| Kevin |
What capitalism cost the taxpayer £170 billion? I wasn't aware that the UK had a capitalist economy any more than the US does. |
||||||||
| Shagpile |
Re: The unionist position
Now there's a point. The Barnett formula..... a kind of Socialist thingy. The UK a reforming Euro-Capitalist State, swallowing up big helpings of American Capitalism (ala Maggie T., continued and accelerated by Tony B.). The only socialism we've seen come out of the USA in recent years is the bail-out of ever-so-wealthy banks and insurance companies. Maybe because Scotland is bailing out the rest of the UK at the moment makes the Barnett formula a good thingy; in a scocialist sense, but me personally........ I'd be well shot of it. I'm all for full fiscal autonomy though...... the independent type. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Re: The unionist position
History. Canada doesn't have an awful lot of it, Alberta has even less. This shortage of history makes it possible to have such an arrangement without anybody getting too agitated about the arrangement at either provincial or federal level. |
||||||||
| William_Cleland |
Re: The unionist position
Sure but that isn't the only potential outcome on fiscal autonomy as I am sure you are aware. The devolution package of 1997 was designed primarily for the benefit of the Labour Party. It can't sensibly be viewed as a stable constitutional settlement until the Tories have been in power and have grappled with the issues related to the Barnett formula and the West Lothian Question. How that unfolds remains to be seen. Given the drastic cuts to public spending that are going to be required due to the UK's current debt crisis, the Barnett formula will be a sure recipe for confrontation between Holyrood and Westminster in the years ahead, which might make fiscal autonomy for Scotland more attractive to the Conservatives than it otherwise might have been prior to the credit crunch. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/commen...d-tears-facing-David-Cameron.html There is a point which David Cameron likes to make in his speeches at the moment: that the Government's plan for reducing the deficit over the next four years will merely bring the national overdraft down to the level it reached in 1976, when Denis Healey had to beg a loan from the International Monetary Fund. "You see?" he is trying to say, "we aren't even in the foothills of the austerity Alps we have to climb: we need to go further, faster." That Labour experience remains the relevant one for every politician who will be around after polling day to play a part, large or small, in the collective effort that lies ahead. In the Treasury and in Tory HQ, what happened a generation ago is being pored over for lessons that might help get us out of the black hole we are in. Unlike the Canadian fiscal rescue of the 1990s – itself a rich source of possible solutions – it has the advantage of being a very British crisis.... |
||||||||
| Shagpile |
Re: The unionist position
Yes, I agree to a point. Don't forget the Lib Dems though. It was also designed for them too.... devolution would result in them being in coalition with Labour in the Parliament. As every one expected, it was those parties which formed the government; although it was not called a government until McLiesh called it that and felt Labour's full wrath for that assertion. I'm pretty sure it was their intention to 'roll out' their coallessed governance throughout the Regional Assemblies of England, had the Regional Parliaments/Assemblies been acceptable to the English electorate. Of the 'Big Three', the Torys have been the most pragmatic. Fingers burned with the Poll Tax fiasco..... they are alone as Unionists in wishing to see Devolution work and are "U-Turnedly" (if that's a word) signed up to the concept. Now, Labour are "Not opposed to the referendum in principle", but say it's the wrong time. Last week it was reported on CNN that the UK will see shoots of recovery and have positive growth in 2010. That ought to curb their objections to a referendum. Scotland will still be in surplus anyway..... What will they base continued opposition to the referendum on? Back to the Torys again for a moment, it's worth bearing in mind that it is their party supporters which are the most dynamic in support for independence, which may well be the reason for the desire from the Tory leadership in Scotland not to rock the "devolution boat". I have a feeling that the political make up in an independent Scotland would be Torys; right of centre, SNP; left of cente. Natural coalition partners for the Torys would be a smaller Labour party. Natural coalition for the SNP would be The Lib Dems, The Greens and the SSP etc. So, I don't believe the Torys will ever be in power in Scotland this side of independence. Labour and the Conservatives, what ever the result in Westminster WILL persue cuts in spending. Where and when these cuts will be imposed and how they affect recovery is yet to be seen. An independent Scotland in surplus need not endure these cuts. |
||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Re: The unionist position
|
||||||||
| William_Cleland |
The latest economic growth figures are truly dire:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8321970.stm The UK economy unexpectedly contracted by 0.4% between July and September, according to official figures, meaning the country is still in recession. .... The worse-than-expected GDP figures are likely to make the Bank of England consider extending its policy of quantitative easing. Quantitative easing is the central bank's policy of printing money and using it to buy bonds from banks and other companies to help stimulate the economy. "Back in August we had a worse-than-expected second-quarter GDP number and that is the reason that the Bank of England extended the quantitative easing programme," Bronwyn Curtis from HSBC told the BBC. Desperate and highly risky measures have had to be taken to keep the decline in GDP limited to 5.9% since the start of the recession. That can't continue indefinitely. Once the general election is out of the way there are going to have to be drastic cuts to public spending along the lines of what happened under Thatcher in the early 80s to get budget deficits back under control again. From a Westminster perspective it may be highly tempting to download more fiscal powers to Holyrood so that the cuts can't so easily be turned into a Scotland vs England thing by the SNP and to remove the grievances south of the border about perceived subsidies of Scotland by English taxpayers (please desist from telling me that Scotland actually subsidises England because that doesn't address the point being made). |
||||||||
| Alasdair |
Unless there is a full review of the devolution settlement north and south of the border it is unlikely that any grievances (percieved or otherwise) will be laid to rest. Continuing to devolve powers to Scotland and the other assembles will only serve to feed into a perceived bias against England unless calls for an English Assembly/Parliament are seriously considered as part of any aforementioned review. |
||||||||
| magister ludi |
I'll ride the tiger by the tail and vote for re-independence......but democracy, that's altogether something new....and maybe a step too far..... What do you mean "not now" ? Bring it on!! |
||||||||
| Shagpile |
Re: The unionist position
I agree it's optimistic..... but I'll bet it's the one Labour will be spinning.
Again.... I would have to say I agree. 'Devils Advocacy' was my 'tounge in cheek' take on what I suspect their pre election spin would be. Personally there is NO valid reason for denying the Scottish electorate their verdict on a straight independence Yes or No referendum. |
||||||||
| Fidget |
Re: The unionist position
I think it's fair to say the 'experts' are far from expert as well given the recent financial meltdown that few of them profess to have seen coming. Endless credit being thrown at people and news reports of britain smashing through the Trillion barrier of personal debt.. yet the standard line from our so called experts was that nobody seen it coming. And even in the throes of it they couldn't make their minds up about what was going on. Experts indeed. What a laugh! |
||||||||
| Shagpile |
Re: The unionist position
The green shoots have not appeared yet, CNN reported -0.4% growth for the UK....... a tad short (disapointingly) of their own prediction. |
||||||||
| Cruachan |
Re: The unionist position
Of course apart from the, actually quite bad news, this does give Iain Gray more time to put off his eventual capitulation on a Referendum vote 
|
||||||||
| Holebender |
See... every Labour cloud has a Labour silver lining! | ||||||||
| cuthill76 |
Yeh my feet are firmly in the nationalist camp although I think it is important to engage with others and take on board their viewpoint. As far as I am concerned being in favour of the union is fine as long it is accompanied by some supporting arguments. I just want to know what these are as to me I struggle to see through all the negativity and spin surrounding the independance position. I was hoping to spark a bit of a debate around the set of issues that I listed so that I could hear more views from both sides. Thanks to all those who provide positive input. Iain |
||||||||
| cuthill76 |
Re: The unionist position
No offense mate but why bother saying anything then? |
||||||||
| Stevie |
landg has trouble saying things, so when he puts together a coherent sentence it's always thrilling no matter if it truly does or doesn't make sense.
However, he seems happy and often laughs merrily at his own jokes (actually most of the Brit Nats do). |
||||||||
| Aventinian |
Well, it rather strikes me as an odd question. Nationalist 'arguments' can just as effectively be made for one 'nation' as for another. As such, people with a British nationalist viewpoint can simply translate the arguments Scottish nationalists use, crossing out 'Scotland' and inserting 'Britain'. Indeed, for all their talk about civic nationalism, Britishness is one of the truest civic nationalisms out there. Both Scotland and Britain are 'state-nations', where identity has grown up around national institutions rather than vice-versa, but Britishness has managed to exist in relative harmony with pre-existing national identities. You very rarely meet a Pict, or a Strathclyde Briton anymore... For my part, I use another argument: I base my opposition to Scottish nationalism on a rejection of all nationalism. I very much like the institutions of the British state because it is a very early example of the rejection of the nationalist politics of that period: it was created to widen trade, secure liberty through the entrenchment of constitutional monarchy and so forth. However I also recognise that we anti-nationalists must not build our own state-nationalisms, which is why we cannot become too attached to any state no matter how grand and glorious its past. That is why I am pro-Europe and indeed pro-internationalism. |
||||||||
| Braveheart |
Cuthill76
Hey you: can you please tell me why we shouldn't cut off our right arm? Can you please do this by providing tangible reasons and please avoid negative attacks on the Amputatist position.. Whut? Who are you? I speak for your right arm.. No you don't. Yes I do, I'm the Right Arm Amputatist Party (RAAP) Where are you? And how can you claim to speak for my right arm? I'm here...down here..that's right... a pinkie. And I demand redress for past wrongs.... What wrongs... Nobody asked me to be attached to your body....it just happened, before I was born. I wasn't consulted and I demand redress. Chop off the arm. But your not my right arm, your just a tiny minority digit... ...I speak for the whole of the arm, and I demand amputation, or at least a referendum on amputation. And I want it now. Or later. And I demand that you give me reasons why I shouldn't amputate.. But that's crazy. I don't have to tell you why I want to stay attached to my right arm. It's always beeen there, it works quite well, if I lost it I would be a bit hampered and I have no desire to lose it. As for the arm, how would it survive on its own? There's tons of small arms surviving quite well all over the world. They don't need foreign shoulders to lean on or foreign legs to help them get about. They're called the Arms of Prosperity, and you get them from Iceland to Ireland.... But I don't need to tell you why I want to keep my arm. It's my arm and I like it. That's enough for me... BODYIST! What do you mean? Your a bodyist. You want to keep your body whole and deny me the right of amputation. But it's my arm! Dammit, I don't see any sensible reason to cut it off. Why should you keep it? Why not? See. You refuse to give any reasons why you should keep your arm. Your stupid and bodyist and you don't have any reasons for keeping your arm. Apart from it works and its mine and I don't want to lose it? Isn't that enough? Not for us Amputists. We don't agree with connection and we demand Amputaton now! Yer aff yer heid mate. It's you that should be justifying amputation, not me that should be justifying keeping my body parts... COWARD! BODYIST! and so on ad infinitum... |
||||||||