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.
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:13 pm Post subject: Scotland- A new or an ancient country?
I'm not going to start a debate whether independence for Scotland would be a good or a bad thing; That topic has been over and done with; but if Scotland ever became independent would it be considered a new country in the world?
What I have in mind is that aren't there any possibilities of interpreting the 1707-treaty so that the reasons behind the treaty have ceased to exist and therefore it is dissolved. That interpretation doesn't make Scotland a new country.
My comparison lies in the Baltic states. The three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania all became independent from the Russian Empire in the late 1910´s. That was when they declared independence.
All three were occupied by the Soviet Union between 1940-1991. The policy towards new independence varied as Lithuania re-declared independence while Estonia followed the policy of continuation.
According to the Estonian interpretation, the period of 1940-91 was a state of lawlessness and in 1991 the lawful state of affairs was restored. They didn't declare independence in 1991 because they had done so in 1918.
This may seem semantic but it has very practical motives. Namely, after Stalin occupied Estonia, hundreds of thousands Russians were planted to the country. If there had been a new declaration of independence, dealing with these people and their offspring would have been more complicated.
The continuation-theory had it that the rule of law in Estonia ended in the summer of 1940. Anyone citizen of Estonia then and their descendants became citizens of the newly independent Estonia in 1991. All others were foreigners.
Therefore, about 1/3 of the population which mostly were born in the country were all of a sudden relegated to the "foreigner"-dustbin. Estonian and Estonian alone was declared the language of the state and Russian,spoken by 1/3 of the population and more than 1/2 of the inhabitants of the capital Tallinn, became a foreign language.
Lithuania gave citizenship to all those who requested it. hence, no problems.
Could Scotland interpret that they are not a new country in the world? So that the reason for signing the treaty in 1707 no longer apply and the treaty must be dissolved?
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:44 pm Post subject: Re: Scotland- A new or an ancient country?
VLK wrote:
if Scotland ever became independent would it be considered a new country in the world?
It would be new in the sense that there would be a new seat at the United Nations and a new sign reading "Scotland" on the table. It would be old in the sense that Scotland does indeed have an ancient history.
VLK wrote:
after Stalin occupied Estonia, hundreds of thousands Russians were planted to the country.
That's not true.
"Planted" makes it sound like they were forcibly deported there.
Stalin DID forcibly re-plant entire populations to Siberia etc, but that's not what happened in the case of Estonia.
What happened was that, for much of the 20th Century (and not just during Stalin's rule) you had the USSR. A "Union" which was much bigger than just Russia. During the 20th Century, people from other parts o the USSR migrated to Estonia. To better their employment prospects.
SOME of the folk who migrated to Estonia were from Russia, and some weren't, they were from other parts of the USSR.
What they had in common was the Russian language, but surely here on this Our Scotland forum it ought to be obvious you can't class all English-speakers as "English" - and you can't class all Russian-speakers as "Russian".
When Estonia became independent again, under a political party drawing on a Nationalist tradition which had collaborated with the Nazis during WW2, about 40 percent of the population were considered by these Estonian Nationalists as "Non-Estonian", and deprived of citizenship. To a large extent, it was the working class which was dis-enfranchised, and to a large extent it was university professors etc who did the dis-enfranchising.
We in Scotland most certainly should NOT follow the disgraceful, racist, anti-working class, example of Estonia.
Lithuania acted differently. When they became independent again in 1991 they granted citizenship to everyone who was living in that country at the time. However, it must be noted that non-Lithuanians consisted only 10% of the population.
However, citizehship is not the issue here. I'm more interested in the concept of continuation-theory and to what extent it could be applied to Scotland.
Scotland was a recognized sovereign country prior to 1707. The act of union was not originally meant to be a permanent arrangement. Could Scotland unilaterally declare that the reasons for the treaty 305 years ago are no longer relevant and therefore the treaty is dissolved? In that case there would be no need for any dramatic moves like a referendum or a declaration of independence.
How do you propose to gauge the will of the population without a referendum? You are advocating a UDI, which is guaranteed to be one of the most difficult possible ways of gaining independence! We know that many countries will not recognise a UDI, and we know for sure the UK would refuse to recognise it. Why are you trying to throw away our independence on the eve of achieving it by peaceful legitimate means?
What's your agenda? And while we're at it, what does Scotland's ancient or modern status have to do with anything you're suggesting? All I'm seeing is an incoherent ramble about ethnic nationalism in the Baltic and UDI. _________________ "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson
It was in Estonia. Not only immigrants, but people who had been born in Estonia, the children or even the grandchildren of immigrants, were refused citizenship. Refusing them citizenship was a major reason for the Estonian Nationalist regime claiming to be a "Continuation".
VLK wrote:
I'm more interested in the concept of continuation-theory and to what extent it could be applied to Scotland.
Even if it was possible to say an independent Scotland is a continuation of the state which existed before 1707, maybe even before 1603 (which frankly I would doubt very much), no way could you say that only people who can trace their ancestry in Scotland back to before then can be citizens. You might as well say that I could declare a Pictish Free State, or a Caledonian Continuity, and announce that only me and my relatives and a few other folk qualify as citizens, and all them Scot etc newcomers don't.
VLK wrote:
Could Scotland unilaterally declare that the reasons for the treaty 305 years ago are no longer relevant and therefore the treaty is dissolved?
Who is this "Scotland" that would make such a declaration? Certainly not the Scottish Parliament.
VLK wrote:
In that case there would be no need for any dramatic moves like a referendum
In 1916, on the steps of the Post Office in Dublin, a small group of armed rebels declared an Irish Republic. That was far more "dramatic" than holding a referendum. It was also far less democratic, and Ireland continues to live with the consequences of that dramatic and un-democratic action to this day. What you are talking about, even if it should be dressed up as a "Continuation", would in practice be a unilateral declaration of independence by some un-representative group. I think the idea stinks. Far better to proceed through a referendum which gives democratic legitimacy to independence.
True, the Union of 1707 had no democratic legitimacy. True, there was no referendum of the population of Scotland then. In 1707 hardly anybody at all had the vote, there was slavery in the English colonies in America, while in Scotland both coalminers and saltworkers were serfs, not allowed to move away or change employment. The fact that there was no democratic legitimacy in 1707 is not a good reason for rejecting democracy now. Of course we have to have a referendum.
The act of union was not originally meant to be a permanent arrangement.
Are you sure about that? The Act says something along the lines of Scotland and England forever after being united into one Kingdom called Great Britain. That sounds quite permanent to me.
Scotland was a recognized sovereign country prior to 1707. The act of union was not originally meant to be a permanent arrangement.
I genuinely wonder if there's some sinister driving force exploiting the ignorance of Scottish nationalists or if they just come up with this sort of utter nonsense of their own accord. Because it really is something to behold.
The Acts of Union make clear that they are "for ever".
Quote:
Could Scotland unilaterally declare that the reasons for the treaty 305 years ago are no longer relevant and therefore the treaty is dissolved?
No, of course not. For one, there were no 'reasons' given for the treaty to have effect and, for another, even if the original reasons behind a treaty (or indeed any law) cease to exist, they do not render the treaty somehow extinguished.
Either way, the United Kingdom is not contingent on a treaty. At the formation of the state, it became - to adopt the parlance of the EU - a new legal order.
I can't remember if VLK is from Estonia, or from some other Eastern European country, but he did speculate about the possibility (which exists nowhere else except in his own imagination) of Scotland emulating Estonia's example. I said that would be an extremely bad and profoundly un-democratic example to follow.
VLK wrote:
The act of union was not originally meant to be a permanent arrangement
Aventinian wrote:
I genuinely wonder if there's some sinister driving force exploiting the ignorance of Scottish nationalists or if they just come up with this sort of utter nonsense of their own accord.
VLK wrote:
Perhaps nothing whatsoever to do with Scotland but toying with the idea is fun.
Aventinian. VLK realises his idea is "perhaps nothing to do with Scotland", and he just "toys" with it, as an outsider, because "it's fun". Somebody with little knowledge of Scotland toying with an idea about Scotland based on knowing little about Scotland seems a very flimsy thing on which to base your hypothesis about a sinister driving force. VLK isn't Scottish, has never lived in Scotland, and clearly has huge gaps in his knowledge of this country.
Hey Aventinian.
Talk about exploitation and sinister in Scotland and the word Conservatives comes to mind. _________________ Oh for one hour of Dundee.
It would be new to me - image this, "Dell computer giant "extraordinarily confident" in Scotland" becoming a beacon of attraction for business
The newsnetscotland site has the full story, which strangely enough is being ignored by the lap-dog MSM _________________ "Scotland's stunningly beautiful, and utterly captivating capital city, Edinburgh"
It would be new to me - image this, "Dell computer giant "extraordinarily confident" in Scotland" becoming a beacon of attraction for business
The newsnetscotland site has the full story, which strangely enough is being ignored by the lap-dog MSM
Considering your ridiculous over-linking of that website - which produces little more than stupid opinions and conspiracy theory fodder for nutcases in addition to its usual churnalism extracted from other sources - it is surprising that you don't provide a link to this article.
Ever suspicious, I intended to pop over and have a read. It appears that they have drawn these remarks from... dun dun dun... the Scotland on Sunday! Now, I realise many of the Scottish papers aren't doing too well these days, but I'd still count that as mainstream media. Which I assume is what you mean by MSM (rather than it's more common meaning)
Perhaps another matter that you didn't find quite so convenient to mention is that the man concerned was wined-and-dined by Salmond at Bute House a mere week ago, and indeed has been given millions of pounds by the Scottish Government in grants.
Last edited by Aventinian on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
I give up! Now the moderators are engaging with the troll. It's obvious you want to keep him on board, so that's this forum down the toilet. _________________ "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
