Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Economist · Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:52 pm Post subject: Will Scotland do a Belgium?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/...ists/tim_hames/article2419330.ece

Cymro · Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:49 am Post subject:

Appart from the childish first paragraph about Tintin etc thats not actually that bad an article. Certainly raises some key points on the desperation of Labour to keep Scotland purely for it's own agenda.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Today's Herald also has an article drawing parallels between Scotland and Belgium. I wrote a comment on the Herald website which I reproduce here: Although this article draws comparisons with Scotland, the two are extremely different. The reason the Dutch speaking north eastern parts of Belgium are not part of the Netherlands is religion - protestantism, under the House of Orange, triumphed in the Netherlands, while Flanders stayed very Catholic. Notice that the Flemish Nationalists are NOT demanding union with their fellow Dutch speakers in the Netherlands. That is because there is a very strong element of Catholic sectarianism amongst Flemish Nationalists. In the early 19th Century, a decision was taken, with the backing of that great European power, Great Britain, the victors of the Napoleonic Wars, to lump Flanders together with Wallonia and call it "Belgium". But there is really no such thing as "Belgian History" before that, just a confused mixture of histories for the low countries to the north of France. In contrast, Scotland certainly DOES have such a thing as "Scottish History", the history of an independent kingdom which lasted a thousand years. Another obvious difference with Scotland is that in the Scottish case, we have a very clear Border with England. In the case of Flanders, it would be down to arguing about which side of which street in Brussels should be the border. "Developments across the North Sea carry significance for Scotland"? No, not much significance. Scotland will be independent before Flanders.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Okay, what I sent first was my response to the Herald article about Belchum, this is a comment on Tim Hames's article in the Times.

"it is worth wondering whether the United Kingdom is destined to share the fate of Belgium" - the United Kingdom was formed by the Union of two long-established kingdoms, Scotland and England. In the negotiations which led to the formation of the UK, the Scottish representatives, despite being unionists, did secure some very important concessions for the continuing identity of Scotland, such as a seperate Church of Scotland, a separate Scottish legal system, and a separate Scottish education system. The Border between Scotland and England continued to exist as a genuine legal border. The differences in laws between the two sides of that border led to things like young English couples running away to get married in Scotland, for instance. Nothing remotely like that applies in the case of Belgium, an artificial country which was invented by British politicians in the early 19th Century. There is no such thing as "Belgian History" before that, just the histories of the confused jumble of territories in the low countries to the north of France. But there was and is such a thing as "Scottish History". Given that Scotland already exists legally speaking, and has a legal border, dissolving the United Kingdom is a relatively straightforward matter, whereas dissolving Belgium would involve arguments about which side of a street in Brussels the border should be on. Precisely BECAUSE Belgium is so artificial, dissolving it is likely to be a lot messier than dissolving the UK.

"Alex Salmond, the able, astute and populist First Minister (a sort of Ken McLivingstone but with talent) will not secure a referendum on independence by 2010 as he wants" - this makes the usual mistake of assuming that the campaign for a referendum on independence is something under the control of Alex Salmond and the SNP. Quite simply, it isn't, and all predictions based on the assumption that it is are automatically invalid.

RadgeJougal · Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject:

There already is an English National Party (so called)

The Lithgae Jambo · Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject:

The most important issue with respect to Scotland arising from the current Belgian political stalemate is that the question over continuing EU membership of both resultant states will be resolved - and it will be most definitely be resolved in favour of continued membership for both.

The formal precedent will then be set - and another unionist myth will bite the dust.
_________________
Is the credit crunch changing your views on Scottish independence Cast your vote in the latest Scotsgait poll.

Aventinian · Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject:

The Lithgae Jambo · Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:33 am Post subject:

Pip · Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:48 am Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:05 am Post subject:

Regardless of existing precedent (if there is any) I took TLJ's point to be that the treatment of Belgium will become an EU precedent. If the successor states of a Belgian split retain membership of the EU the same rules should apply in the case of any other member state which fragments. Can anyone imagine Brussels not being in the EU, or being required to even make a token application for membership?
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

iolaire · Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject:

The comparison with Belgium is kind of lazy. There are almost no similarities. Belgium is overcrowded and has no energy resources. Scotland is vast, under-populated with among the largest untapped renewable energy resources in Europe. There are no historical similarities, and the internal tensions in Belgium are in no way similar to the tensions between England and Scotland. So, sorry, this is a rubbish comparison as well as being unnecessarily insulting to Belgium.

On EU accession, this is primarily a political not a legal issue. I was involved in the Slovenian accession to the EU. I can assure you that the lawyers were redrafting the legal frameworks to accord with the political decisions. There is no doubt whatsoever that Scotland would accede; in fact it could already have regional representation in the EU as the Spanish regions have. I think Alex was investigating that during his recent trip to the EU where he was a great hit. There will be no problems for Scotland taking up its EU membership. There is a vacant chair there right now with Scotland's name on it.

The Lithgae Jambo · Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject:

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

The Lithgae Jambo wrote "if Belgium does split, the subsequent status of the new countries within the EU will form the precedent for the position of Scotland (and the rump of the UK) post its independence" - there will be no such precedent for the simple reason that Scotland will be independent long before Belgium splits into two separate countries. We have a long established border with England which does not run through Edinburgh. They have an almost un-resolvable quarrel over which side of which street in Brussels should be the border. We will set the precedent, not Belgium.

RadgeJougal · Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject:

"We have a long established border with England which does not run through Edinburgh."

But it does run through Berwickshire. Smile

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

Okay it may be strange having "Berwickshire" in Scotland yet not "Berwick", but that's a small matter compared to the problems involved in any division of Belgium, particularly the problem of what you do about the two and a half million people who live in the city and the suburbs of the major European city of Brussels.

None of the political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament, or who have ever been represented in the Scottish Parliament, make any claim on Berwick. It is possible that, at some time in the future, the citizens of Berwick-On-Tweed might want a referendum on whether or not they should join in with Scotland; but that will be a matter for THEM to take up with the English government. It is not something which needs to delay independence for Scotland. The territory for which the Scottish claim of independence is made is the territory which at present comes under Scottish law. That is FAR more straightforward than the incredibly complicated arguments in and around Brussels. The Belgian federation may become so loose it is nearer and nearer to separation, but the problem of Brussels will delay that final step for a long time, if not indefinitely. We can safely say that there will be no "Belgian precedent" to follow because Scotland will be independent long before Belgium ceases to exist. WE will set the precedent.

George · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 02 May 2006 Posts: 622

RadgeJougal · Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject:

"that will be a matter for THEM to take up with the English government."

Is this statement "ex cathedra"?

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1096

"Ex cathedra" is a Roman Catholic term. If there is one thing I am certainly NOT, it is Roman Catholic. The term refers to the blasphemous claims of the papacy that a mere human being can sometimes be "infallible". I was brought up to reject the idea that any human being can ever be infallible. What's more, the outrageous claims of the papacy are intended to be a way of AVOIDING having to prove anything. "It is so because the Pope says it is so". Of course I reject that approach. I try to give reasoned arguments, at considerable length when necessary, for the views which I hold. Radge Jougal hates that because he is himself pretty useless at reasoned argument. Unable to discuss things on the level of principles, in order to try to boost his own fragile ego he regularly resorts to personal put-downs.

Let's look at the statement of mine which Radge Jougal is bitching about this time.

I said "Okay it may be strange having 'Berwickshire' in Scotland yet not 'Berwick', but that's a small matter compared to the problems involved in any division of Belgium, particularly the problem of what you do about the two and a half million people who live in the city and the suburbs of the major European city of Brussels."

Got that bit? Yes, what happens to Berwick may be of great importance to the folk of Berwick, but, as "border problems" go, it is a small one compared to the problem of the greater Brussels area. In purely mathematical terms, the Belgians have a problem which is about a hundred times bigger. Anybody disagree? What are your reasons, your arguments, for disagreeing? How big would YOU estimate their problem to be, in mathematical terms?

I said "None of the political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament, or who have ever been represented in the Scottish Parliament, make any claim on Berwick".

That's a simple statement of fact. Neither the SNP nor the Greens nor the Labour Party nor the Tories nor the Liberal Democrats (parties at present represented at Holyrood) make any claim on Berwick, and neither the Scottish Socialist Party nor Solidarity (parties which have been represented at Holyrood in the past) make any claim on Berwick. Anybody disagree? If so, where is your "proof"?

I said that "It is possible that, at some time in the future, the citizens of Berwick-On-Tweed might want a referendum on whether or not they should join in with Scotland; but that will be a matter for THEM to take up with the English government".

Given that nobody in government in Scotland, or who is ever likely to be in government in Scotland, makes any claim on Berwick, again, it seems to me to be a simple statement of the obvious, to say that, IF anybody in Berwick wants the town to become part of Scotland, then it is going to be up to THEM to take the initiative in doing something about this. Anybody disagree? What reasons can you give for disagreeing?

I said "It is not something which needs to delay independence for Scotland. The territory for which the Scottish claim of independence is made is the territory which at present comes under Scottish law." - again, that is a simple statement of fact. The SNP and ALL other parties or organisations of any significance which favour independence for Scotland make that claim for the territory which at present comes under Scottish law, and that does not include Berwick. And like I said, SINCE the claim does not include Berwick, it follows "That is FAR more straightforward than the incredibly complicated arguments in and around Brussels. The Belgian federation may become so loose it is nearer and nearer to separation, but the problem of Brussels will delay that final step for a long time, if not indefinitely. We can safely say that there will be no 'Belgian precedent' to follow because Scotland will be independent long before Belgium ceases to exist. WE will set the precedent."

Anybody disagree with that? If so, what are the reasoned arguments for disagreeing with it?

One of the biggest assets of the movement for Scottish independence, the thing that puts it so far ahead of Flanders, Quebec, Catalonia, Quebec, etc etc etc, is that there are no border disputes to delay the achievement of independence. Anybody who claims to be in favour of independence for Scotland, and yet seeks to complicate that simple, straightforward claim by introducing un-necessary border disputes, is either (1) a fool, or (2) a British agent.

True Scotsman · Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject:

Intresting article, I agree with Dave Coull both contries are completly different and Belgium has a more complicated political system than Scotland or Britain.
_________________
FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!!!!!!!!