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

[Max White]

I think you will find that pretty much being another nations bitch tends to reduce international authority, diplomacy, and economic strength, rather than reinforce it. It has a lot less to do with nationalism and a lot more to do with being able to act with independents.

[MonkeyHead]

Benefits? I am sorry, Scotland, Wales and Northern Irelan until recently had no real say in how thier own nation or the wider UK was run. Now with devolution we have some say in a variety of limited areas, but Westminster still controls taxation, the armed forces, foreign policy... When people overseas think of the UK they think of England. The decisions made in London do not reflect the people living in Scotland, Wales or NI very well at all. All we want is self determination. I dont see how being tacked on offers genuine benefits.

What international authority does the UK actually have anyway? Yes, it is in the EU and UN, but the decisions made there are primarliy for the benefit of the Westminster government, not the member states that make up the UK. Diplomacy? Again, Westminster gets to call the shots there. Economic Strength? Yea, as the decisions made in the last 30 or so years by successive governments in London have basically shafted anything in the way of an economy here in Wales. We could do better as an independant entity by focussing on our own needs.

[Owlbread]

I think you will find that pretty much being another nations bitch tends to reduce international authority, diplomacy, and economic strength, rather than reinforce it. It has a lot less to do with nationalism and a lot more to do with being able to act with independents.

An interesting point is that nationalism of the traditional sort; strong patriotism, the importance of ethnicity, heritage, history, all that stuff - that's the kind of thing the "Better Together" campaign (A.K.A the pretentiously titled No to Independence Campaign) are trying to push down our throats. The stuff that you would recognise as traditional nationalism is mostly British or Unionist.

They're the ones who had beef with the issue of Scots abroad not being able to vote in the referendum. The SNP took the stance that the only people who should vote in the referendum are people who live in Scotland because that's who it will affect. It won't really affect Jock Mackay over in California or Corby, North Hampshire. The Unionists were really pushing for that because they believed that Scots abroad would be more likely to vote No, which is amusing because they criticised the SNP for doing the same thing by giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds, allegedly because they would be more supportive of independence in their young naivity. Despite such patronizations from the Unionists, their theory doesn't seem to be the case given polling results.

In any case, what gives Jock Mackay down in North Hampshire or over in New Zealand more of a right to vote in the referendum than the old Sardar doctor in a local medical practise in Govan? He came all the way over here from Pakistan just to work as a doctor and found he wanted to stay here for the rest of his life, raised his kids here, all that. Why does he now have to compete with Jock Mackay's "magical birth right"?

From the pro-independence camp on the other hand, the majority of our arguments are based around social or economic issues. Unionists are trying to concentrate on identity politics and stuff like national pride, pride in the Queen, pride in our "shared history" and all sorts of things. If you understand British history you'd know that is playing with fire.

But doesn't it suit you too? Y'know, the established international authority, diplomacy, and economic strength? Does your nationalism trounce all the other benefits?

The idea that things like "established international authority" actually has any relevance to the working lives of people in Scotland smacks far more of nationalism than most of the stuff you're criticising.

[MonkeyHead]

Seeing as most of our history is basically smaller proud independant nations on these islands fighting against a larger imperial power (most recently the English), that could really backfire.

[Owlbread]

Seeing as most of our history is basically smaller proud independant nations on these islands fighting against a larger imperial power (most recently the English), that could really backfire.

And our recent history (particularly military history, that's the Unionists' favourite) consists of English-focussed Westminster governments using and abusing our peoples as cannon fodder in grand bloodbaths for Imperial gain.

[LordSlowpoke]

people really believe that if they get rid of [insert government] they won't be dragged into wars?

it's the usa you have to get rid of, not england, in this instance at least

if you do get independence - and i hope you do, for all the wrong reasons - you'll fall straight into their sphere of influence and it's playing tagalong army for the burger bringers again

go push for a stronger eu instead

[Owlbread]

people really believe that if they get rid of [insert government] they won't be dragged into wars?

it's the usa you have to get rid of, not england, in this instance at least

if you do get independence - and i hope you do, for all the wrong reasons - you'll fall straight into their sphere of influence and it's playing tagalong army for the burger bringers again

go push for a stronger eu instead

We are, actually. Most of the pro-independence parties advocate staying within the EU, though not to the point that we would just become provinces of a wider political Union again. "Those days are past now, and in the past they must remain". The thing is that we would at least have the ability to reject calls to enter wars like Iraq or Afghanistan and only provide some kind of logistical support if we absolutely had to (which I don't see happening). There are many small nations in Europe that have not had to become as involved as Scotland has in the wars in the Middle East.

One of the main arguments for independence is also based around the fact that the British government stationed their nuclear arsenal 30 miles from our largest city. We cannot remove it, despite public opinion being overwhelmingly against its abhorrent presence. The majority of the pro-independence parties also advocate leaving NATO and becoming a truly neutral country. I also take that view.

[kingfisher1112]

I see it going like this:
Scotland becomes independent.
UK loses a large amount of tax money and GDP.
Bickering between the two results in cold relations.
UK loses lobbying power in the UN.
Scotland opposes everything UK does just because they dislike each other more and more.
End result: Nobody is happy, valuable trade is lost, people become poorer. The point is: the UK has established, well, everything. Will Scotland get alliances? Trade agreements? EU membership? What about the armed forces? Does Scotland take a slice or start from scratch? Where is the division between the two?

[Max White]

If the UK looses tax money from Scottish independents, that means that money was coming from Scottish people. If that money was being used to help Scotland, I don't see why an independent government couldn't use the same programs, but it is more likely that the money was just being taken from Scotland to help England. Maybe England should learn to live within its means, rather than levi others.

Also, just because the US had a bad patch with the UK on its independents doesn't mean that is how it always goes down. People work a lot better together on equal ground, rather than a master/servant relationship.

[Owlbread]

I see it going like this:
Scotland becomes independent.
UK loses a large amount of tax money and GDP.
Bickering between the two results in cold relations.

Scotland does not actually have to take on its "share" of the British debt, but we are going to do so in exchange for everything else like assets, the oil fields Tony Blair gave to England, that kind of stuff. The British would be pretty happy about that and negotiations would be smooth.

UK loses lobbying power in the UN.

That just isn't our problem.

Scotland opposes everything UK does just because they dislike each other more and more.

Nonsense. We wouldn't "oppose everything the UK does just because we dislike each other", they're our closest neighbour for heaven's sake. The only country we share a land border with. Why would we shit on our doorstep out of spite?

End result: Nobody is happy, valuable trade is lost, people become poorer. The point is: the UK has established, well, everything. Will Scotland get alliances? Trade agreements? EU membership? What about the armed forces? Does Scotland take a slice or start from scratch? Where is the division between the two?

We will get alliances, we will get trade agreements, we will get EU membership, we will apparently take back most of our old regiments that became British or were formed as Scottish regiments within the British army. They have all been amalgamated into a single "Royal Highland Regiment" or something with batallions with distinct identities, like the Black Watch, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and all that. I am sure we would restore those regiments again. We would hold an army a bit smaller than Denmark's, closer to that of Ireland.

[kingfisher1112]

But isn't the UK's future problems your problem? Wouldn't you be held accountable, Y'know, being the people that caused that problem. And, even then, if you get alliances, then how the hell are the UK going to stop you shitting all over them? Shouldn't you consider how lopsided it would be? What happens if Britain can't maintain it's stuff anymore, having no cash? Do you just sit cozily by and sing the Scottish national anthem?

[Owlbread]

But isn't the UK's future problems your problem? Wouldn't you be held accountable, Y'know, being the people that caused that problem.

That isn't really how it works, and if the UK loses lobbying power at the UN despite keeping a large standing army, being one of the largest financial centres in the world and being one of the few openly-nuclear states then that's just the way it has to be.

And, even then, if you get alliances, then how the hell are the UK going to stop you shitting all over them? Shouldn't you consider how lopsided it would be? What happens if Britain can't maintain it's stuff anymore, having no cash? Do you just sit cozily by and sing the Scottish national anthem?

I'm sorry? It's not like Scotland holds all the cards here, the British will still have cash. It's slipping in and out of recession of course, but so are most European states. Our alliances won't be to the detriment of the rUK and I fail to see how they could.

[Max White]

But isn't the UK's future problems your problem? Wouldn't you be held accountable, Y'know, being the people that caused that problem. And, even then, if you get alliances, then how the hell are the UK going to stop you shitting all over them? Shouldn't you consider how lopsided it would be? What happens if Britain can't maintain it's stuff anymore, having no cash? Do you just sit cozily by and sing the Scottish national anthem?

So you want Scotland to carry the UKs potential debts?
Well that seems fair, on the surface. I mean I work hard and pay taxes to help cover national spending, and don't complain, why shouldn't Scotland also work hard to pay a shared debt?

The difference is that I get to vote for the person who figures out national spending. Everybody does, and therefor everybody is responsible for the choices that person makes. BUT if I wasn't given the right to vote, and still expected to pay, I would be on the street protesting.

You are asking Scotland to pay for the UKs spending, without being given the right to say what that spending should be. This is unfair.

[MonkeyHead]

Kingfisher, I think you need to understand the scales we are dealing with here. England had around 50 to 55 million inhabitants. Scotland has IIRC around 5mil, and Wales and NI have 2.5mil each. Should any or all leave, the financial income of England is not going to be affected - if anything it may be better off not having to spend its cash on our infrastructures. Any nation that leaves the UK will want to maintain close relations with it as its local big and rich neighbour.

[10ebbor10]

Point is, the seccesion is justified from an economical point in that it will aid the Scotts, so it has to hurt the UK. Question is, how much are they willing to part with?

Kingfisher, I think you need to understand the scales we are dealing with here. England had around 50 to 55 million inhabitants. Scotland has IIRC around 5mil, and Wales and NI have 2.5mil each. Should any or all leave, the financial income of England is not going to be affected - if anything it may be better off not having to spend its cash on our infrastructures. Any nation that leaves the UK will want to maintain close relations with it as its local big and rich neighbour.

It's all about the oil. And the natural gas. Pretty sure that gives the Scottisch regions as rather large income per capita.