Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

Well, the article I cited do speakof a referendum saying they'd rather stay with the UK. With something like 90% of the vote. and even if you asks nicely, they'd probably take the dead liquids dinosaurs with them.

I'll wait until I hear it from them.

Anyway, I don't think the economics arguments for Scotland to secede or stay are good. It probably going to be doing about as good no matter what.

I agree with you, I think though if you give it 20-30 years we could really make a difference.

Actually, kinda the reverse happened. A Scot became King of England, and a good 200 years later they were merged, If I recall correctly.

As we have already said, Scotland was absorbed into a greater England which became known as Great Britain. The manner in which that happened involved a Scot becoming King of England, then 100 years later they were merged. During that 100 years the nations remained independent from one another.

I find the casuality which which you diminish the 9 to 1 referendum against independence (ie, for staying in the UK) striking. Do note that doing that rapidly diminishes the oil supplies. Shetland's 25%, more if the Uk puts pressure on things. Then there's the licensed fields, there's also some other islands, and the whole lot other diplomatic trouble. Also, the UK is not going to let go of those fields, and I'm pretty sure internation organisations will support them.

I'd like to see that 9 to 1 referendum on independence, I haven't heard of that before. I know they voted against devolution but I'm surprised the Shetlanders managed to get a referendum on independence before anyone else in the UK, lucky buggers.

EDIT: Brought myself to read the Daily Telegraph article. That referendum was 35 years ago. Even Scotland voted against devolution back then. Times have changed, lads.

[10ebbor10]

When Shetland's local authority held a referendum 35 years ago asking if residents wanted to be part of an independent Scotland, the result was nine to one against.

It was in that article. It's a bit old, but there's no reason anything has changed significantly. Oh, and it seems to me that Shetlands relation to Scotland is suprisingly similair to that of Scotland to the UK.

[MonkeyHead]

When Shetland's local authority held a referendum 35 years ago asking if residents wanted to be part of an independent Scotland, the result was nine to one against.

It was in that article. It's a bit old, but there's no reason anything has changed significantly. Oh, and it seems to me that Shetlands relation to Scotland is suprisingly similair to that of Scotland to the UK.

Its the same for most islands around the UK. Anglesea is only 25 meters at most off the Welsh mainland but they do like to think of themselves as thier own little world over there. Probably as the Romans never bothered going over there to properly fuck thier shit up like everywhere else on this side of the Severn. Similar insular attitudes can apparently be found on the Isle of Man and the Isle of Wight, and very much so on the Channel Isles.

[Owlbread]

It was in that article. It's a bit old, but there's no reason anything has changed significantly. Oh, and it seems to me that Shetlands relation to Scotland is suprisingly similair to that of Scotland to the UK.

Nonsense. 34 years ago Scotland voted no in a referendum on having a devolved parliament. The year before that the referendum took place in Shetland. In 1997 Scots voted overwhelmingly in favour of the devolved parliament and tax raising powers, the only places that voted no to tax raising powers were Dumfries & Galloway and Orkney. Every single local authority including Shetland voted in favour of the parliament. Times have changed, sonny Jim. 35 years is a very long time indeed in politics, and it's very silly that Tavish Scott is even bringing it up.

I would also like you to explain why it is surprisingly similar. The SNP, Yes Campaign and... well, myself I suppose... have no problems with Shetland becoming independent and controlling its oil resources. It would leave us in a predicament but if that's their choice that's their choice. The Northern Isles and their identity are being exploited by Unionist parties for political reasons in order to combat the SNP and the pro-independence campaign, just like they were back in '79. You will notice they aren't concentrating fire on the Western Isles, despite their strong identity.

[10ebbor10]

Just a question. What are the things Scotland would do different if it weren't part of the EU. Because at this point we only got contrary things (Eu boni but no responsibilities) and vague wordings.

[Owlbread]

Just a question. What are the things Scotland would do different if it weren't part of the EU. Because at this point we only got contrary things (Eu boni but no responsibilities) and vague wordings.

It's a good question. Our policies are generally in accordance with EU standards, including with respect to Human Rights. Being outside the EU is mostly about currency-related issues and avoiding bureaucracy.

Now... England (not Wales or Northern Ireland necessarily, I'm talking about England) would probably do things quite differently. It's interesting, you know. MonkeyHead is probably aware of this, but have you noticed how much we have reduced this debate about the UK and independence into "Scotland separating from England"? Whatever happened to Wales and Northern Ireland? It's astonishing how many writers and politicians make that exact mistake. It tells you a lot, really.

Regardless of what direction history is going to take next year, I know I'm going to vote yes. I couldn't vote against it. If I have kids I want them to grow up in an independent Scotland without war or nuclear weapons. I know I'm going to sound daft being all romantic and nationalistic, but I have to dream, and if I'm going to let people drive me away from those dreams because of uncertainty what's the point in dreaming at all?

[RedKing]

Now... England (not Wales or Northern Ireland necessarily, I'm talking about England) would probably do things quite differently. It's interesting, you know. MonkeyHead is probably aware of this, but have you noticed how much we have reduced this debate about the UK and independence into "Scotland separating from England"? Whatever happened to Wales and Northern Ireland? It's astonishing how many writers and politicians make that exact mistake. It tells you a lot, really.

Well, it tells me that the Welsh gave up on independence a LONG time ago, and folks in Ulster don't *want* to be independent, other than from Dublin. Those are poor analogies. If there's any analogies to be made, it's to Ireland and India -- former British possessions conquered by force who never gave up aspirations of independence. And honestly, I feel like some measure of Scottish nationalism is driven by an inferiority complex that the Irish and Indians got their states but the Scots didn't.

[Owlbread]

Well, it tells me that the Welsh gave up on independence a LONG time ago, and folks in Ulster don't *want* to be independent, other than from Dublin. Those are poor analogies. If there's any analogies to be made, it's to Ireland and India -- former British possessions conquered by force who never gave up aspirations of independence. And honestly, I feel like some measure of Scottish nationalism is driven by an inferiority complex that the Irish and Indians got their states but the Scots didn't.

I wasn't talking about a Welsh or Northern Irish independence movement though. I was saying that it's interesting that Wales and Northern Ireland are being completely ignored - as if they don't exist. The UK is "just Scotland and England". Maybe they should take the hint and be a bit more vocal. This debate should show them their real place in the Union and maybe what they should be demanding. A lot of debaters make a point of saying rUK (rest of the UK) rather than "England" when it comes to this kind of a debate.

But yes, Scottish nationalism began in the 19th century in response to Irish nationalism, so you are right there. The chip has grown on our shoulders for a very long time though and in response to many things.

[MonkeyHead]

I think its more of a realisation that Wales is currently far better off as the "and Wales" bit of "England and Wales". Yes, we have our own distinct language, culture and identity (which has survived despite the attempts at wiping it out), and have rebelled against "the English" as much as the other members of the UK over the centuries, but since Thatcher did her thing we have nothing in the way of an economy you could support the night on 4million of us on - we rely on gettingmore from the UK than we give, and most people here know this and see no problem with it. Tourism and agriculture can only get us so far. Yes we still have some coal and some gas in the Irish Sea, massive potential for hydro and wind power, and some heavy industries (most noticably steel production and oil refining) in the south still clinging on by the skin of its teeth but with our main employers being public sector (most signifigantly education and the NHS) we need the Westminster funding to keep things ticking on, even if the levels of funding for our public sector is far less than equivalent bodies in England. Where I live (North West Wales) is particularly nationalistic, but very sparsely populated and almost politically irrelevant in both the Senedd and Westminster, with Plaid Cymru holding seats in both which get traded and bartered in coalition talks every election. The south Wales coast and valleys which are more heavily populated are only slightly less patriotic but red as red can be in terms of socialism (if Labour can be called that still), even more so since the 80's. We are quite happy to be all fierce and patriotic and shit in public, but in private doff our cap and take the cash/gains from Westminster.

However, unlike Scotland, I would strongly suspect that if we were offered independance, we would be more likley to take it than Scotland, probably as we have had far more shit in history from the English that could be dragged up. On the other hand though is the very low turn out in the 1997 devolution election with went "yes" only by a few %.

[lordcooper]

This talk of the current government being one you didn't elect is silly.  Much to my disappointment, the UK did elect this government.  Scotland is part of the UK.  You elected this government. 

By your logic the Borough of Chorley should be trying to secede due to a government they didn't elect being in control.

[Owlbread]

This talk of the current government being one you didn't elect is silly.  Much to my disappointment, the UK did elect this government.  Scotland is part of the UK.  You elected this government. 

By your logic the Borough of Chorley should be trying to secede due to a government they didn't elect being in control.

The Borough of Chorley is not a country. We are, or used to be, or are at least treated in such a way. We are also getting the referendum - they aren't.

I'm going on the basis that Scotland, like England or Wales, is a nation. We are recognised in that way by our Claim of Right and by the public recognition of our own people's right to self determination - namely by politicians such as (correct me if I'm wrong) Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and so on.

If we are a nation, we should elect our own national government (you know, the government that will govern our foreign policy, macro-economic policy, taxation and so on). Unfortunately we don't. If Scotland votes in favour of Labour in a general election, then we must rely on the English voters in order to get that Labour government.

Certainly, if the English (not necessarily the Welsh and Northern Irish, there aren't enough of them) vote in a certain way that it would only take a few more Labour votes to swing the election in favour of a Labour or coalition government, then we can make a difference. That has only happened about 4 times in the last 60 years at most, certainly never during the Thatcher or Major years. I believe that Scottish voters in 2008 managed to swing the vote away from a Conservative majority and into a Coalition, but we did not vote for a Coalition. We voted Labour. As you can see, we do not "elect" our own national government, it is a game of russian roulette at best.

[Sheb]

So you are entitled to a say on your independance because you are treated unfairly because you are a nation because yo were granted a say on your independance. Did I get your point?

[Owlbread]

So you are entitled to a say on your independance because you are treated unfairly because you are a nation because yo were granted a say on your independance. Did I get your point?

We are entitled to have a say on our independence because we are a historical nation and because our right of self determination was recognised.

We are also treated unfairly in the sense that we don't elect our own national government. That's not really a reason for having a say on independence, it's a reason for voting Yes.

[Sheb]

Would you want to leave the EU by the same token? Any European governing body would largely be elected by non-Scots.

Also, I find the "We're an historical nation" argument incredibly weak. Being an historical nation only give you an history nationalists can build a community on. What gives you a right to self-determination is being human. If Luton decided they wanted to be independent, in my opinion they should have that possibility.

[Owlbread]

Would you want to leave the EU by the same token? Any European governing body would largely be elected by non-Scots.

Also, I find the "We're an historical nation" argument incredibly weak. Being an historical nation only give you an history nationalists can build a community on. What gives you a right to self-determination is being human. If Luton decided they wanted to be independent, in my opinion they should have that possibility.

They should, it just adds more credibility to the movement if the area in question used to be a country.

The EU also doesn't exactly decide whether or not we go to war, nor does it decide the vast majority of the economic policies. There is therefore less... urgency I suppose... or necessity to remove it.