Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Scottish Independence

  • 04-07-2011 3:34pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭


    So....With the impending referendum on scotland upcoming, im asking what do the general population on boards think of it. Are they in favour of it, against or not bothered either way.

    Personally I am in favour of it, every country should have the power to govern themselves, govern their own defece and tax affairs, inflate / deflate their currency (or decide to stay in/ withdraw from the euro in our case). With scotland having its own say without external / english intervention will lead to the people of scotland truely having the last word on what route the country should be.

    But as ever the decision of the people is the last word and should be accepted whatever the result

    ALSO : I have no idea how to add a poll :/


«13456716

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Cathal O wrote: »
    ALSO : I have no idea how to add a poll :/

    Polls aren't allowed in this forum, so you wouldn't see an option to add one.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Post-independence Scotland might then have to deal with further separatist with parts of the Highlands or Orkneys (which historically have been different entities from the Lowlands) seeking greater autonomy from Edinburgh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Cathal O wrote: »
    So....With the impending referendum on scotland upcoming, im asking what do the general population on boards think of it. Are they in favour of it, against or not bothered either way.

    Personally I am in favour of it, every country should have the power to govern themselves, govern their own defece and tax affairs, inflate / deflate their currency (or decide to stay in/ withdraw from the euro in our case). With scotland having its own say without external / english intervention will lead to the people of scotland truely having the last word on what route the country should be.

    But as ever the decision of the people is the last word and should be accepted whatever the result

    ALSO : I have no idea how to add a poll :/

    They'd be better off slowly accruing more autonomy until they are de facto independent and going for it then, IMO. Softly, softly, catchee beastie etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Saor Alba.


    I hope Scotland gets its Independance. The SNP have shown that scottish people have what it takes to Govern Scotland effectivly.

    The one problem I see with it is that it may lead to a strenghtning of Scottish Unionism, and as a side effect, Ulster Unionism. However Scottish independance would cause such a crisis in Northern Unionism that it would be worth it in the long run IMO.


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    Nodin wrote: »
    They'd be better off slowly accruing more autonomy until they are de facto independent and going for it then, IMO. Softly, softly, catchee beastie etc.

    They couldnt be going more slowly....they have their own parliament akin to home rule, they also have their own legal system, the last barrier is mainly the issues over self security and tax issues, this referendum will ultimately decide this


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Cathal O wrote: »
    They couldnt be going more slowly....they have their own parliament akin to home rule, they also have their own legal system, the last barrier is mainly the issues over self security and tax issues, this referendum will ultimately decide this

    ....thats where I think they'll flounder though. Anything that hasn't been devolved and shown to have worked will be used to scaremonger and cause people to baulk.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,739 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Nodin wrote: »
    They'd be better off slowly accruing more autonomy until they are de facto independent and going for it then, IMO. Softly, softly, catchee beastie etc.

    Agree.
    Nodin wrote: »
    ....thats where I think they'll flounder though. Anything that hasn't been devolved and shown to have worked will be used to scaremonger and cause people to baulk.

    That's why the referendum won't be held until near the end of this parliament. The amount of scaremongering will be savage. While the SNP are in the majority, that is not necessarily translating into support for independence (or so the opinion polls say). The SNP will have to do some job to sell it to people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Manach wrote: »
    Post-independence Scotland might then have to deal with further separatist with parts of the Highlands or Orkneys (which historically have been different entities from the Lowlands) seeking greater autonomy from Edinburgh.

    That was the great doubt nationalists Scottish friends of mine had about independence - their view was that by and large Westminster at least treated all of Scotland equally.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,604 ✭✭✭Kev_ps3


    I would like to see them get Independence. The English shouldn't have control over any people considering their appalling misrule over the century's.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Cathal O wrote: »
    So....With the impending referendum on scotland upcoming, im asking what do the general population on boards think of it. Are they in favour of it, against or not bothered either way.

    Personally I am in favour of it, every country should have the power to govern themselves, govern their own defece and tax affairs, inflate / deflate their currency (or decide to stay in/ withdraw from the euro in our case). With scotland having its own say without external / english intervention will lead to the people of scotland truely having the last word on what route the country should be.

    But as ever the decision of the people is the last word and should be accepted whatever the result

    ALSO : I have no idea how to add a poll :/
    I'm going to go out against popular opinion here and say I hope they don't. The break-up of the United Kingdom could have very serious consequences for regional stability.
    Cathal O wrote: »
    With scotland having its own say without external / english intervention will lead to the people of scotland truely having the last word on what route the country should be.
    This sentence struck me. English intervention is not external intervention. No more then any federalised state. Which is what Britain pretty much is now, federalised in all but name.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭Knight990


    If Scotland did go independent, I think it would be one of the most important things to happen in these Isles for quite a while, especially for Northern Ireland - because the independence would have been gained through peaceful means, showing that it is possible to gain your freedom without arms.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I'm going to go out against popular opinion here and say I hope they don't. The break-up of the United Kingdom could have very serious consequences for regional stability.

    I'll echo the sentiment of hoping they don't. I've a lot of Scottish relatives, family living in Scotland, etc. and I spend quite a bit of time there in any given year and nobody that I have ever talked to about independence, especially in the context of the SNP has left me with any impression other than whilst sentiment being nice, there are far more pressing issues to deal with, and that there is sod all faith in the SNP & its leadership in Alec Salmond.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,439 ✭✭✭Richard


    Knight990 wrote: »
    If Scotland did go independent, I think it would be one of the most important things to happen in these Isles for quite a while, especially for Northern Ireland - because the independence would have been gained through peaceful means, showing that it is possible to gain your freedom without arms.

    What is this "freedom" you speak of? The majority of Scots already see themselves as free. Freedom and independence are different concepts.

    This also applies to NI.


  • Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭Knight990


    Richard wrote: »
    What is this "freedom" you speak of? The majority of Scots already see themselves as free. Freedom and independence are different concepts.

    This also applies to NI.

    Total legislative freedom.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,700 ✭✭✭irishh_bob


    Cathal O wrote: »
    So....With the impending referendum on scotland upcoming, im asking what do the general population on boards think of it. Are they in favour of it, against or not bothered either way.

    Personally I am in favour of it, every country should have the power to govern themselves, govern their own defece and tax affairs, inflate / deflate their currency (or decide to stay in/ withdraw from the euro in our case). With scotland having its own say without external / english intervention will lead to the people of scotland truely having the last word on what route the country should be.

    But as ever the decision of the people is the last word and should be accepted whatever the result

    ALSO : I have no idea how to add a poll :/


    the media has always over estimated the desire for independance in scotland but while thier has been an undoubted increase in support for the SNP , i wouldnt put the YES vote any higher than 30 % in any potential referendum


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 806 ✭✭✭getzls


    Alex Salmon said after the last elections he would not be looking a referendum for about 9 yrs. With this recession he knows they can't afford to go alone. Of course they would turn back to the UK and EU to bail them out if things got sticky in the future. Bit like Ireland.:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    The only answer I could give is indepedence is a good idea if the majority of scottish people want independence.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    serfboard wrote: »
    The amount of scaremongering will be savage.

    This, very, very much this. British unionists will claim everything under the sun to scare weaker people out of voting for Scottish freedom. Just like they did in Ireland in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Saor Alba.


    I hope Scotland gets its Independance. The SNP have shown that scottish people have what it takes to Govern Scotland effectivly.

    The one problem I see with it is that it may lead to a strenghtning of Scottish Unionism, and as a side effect, Ulster Unionism. However Scottish independance would cause such a crisis in Northern Unionism that it would be worth it in the long run IMO.
    Knight990 wrote: »
    If Scotland did go independent, I think it would be one of the most important things to happen in these Isles for quite a while, especially for Northern Ireland - because the independence would have been gained through peaceful means, showing that it is possible to gain your freedom without arms.

    People here really don't give a damn about Scottish Independence, they only see it as some sort of a proxy to undermine the current situation in Northern Ireland.

    Knight990 - I'm not really sure than many in NI actually want 'freedom', most are happy to be governed as part of the UK and a sizeable number would prefre to be governed as part of a united Ireland.

    Personally I have always believed that an independent Scotland would have a negative effect of the Republic of Ireland's ability to be competitive in attracting foregin investment.
    Scotland could control their own fiscal policy to attract investment, they have superior infrastructure, natural resources, plus they have a huge market on their door step in England.

    Having such a competitor so close would not be to our advantage.

    Then again I'll leave it up to the Scots to decide their fate.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    The break-up of the United Kingdom could have very serious consequences for regional stability.

    This is the sort of scaremongering that is typical of the rightwing/yellow press in Britain. In a democratic world we are expected to believe that if the Scots choose independence then this will have "serious consequences for regional stability". From whom? Democrats?

    Or are British unionists again going to threaten army mutiny, armed resistance by citizens and much more à la 1913-1914 just because democracy overrules them once more?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭LaBaguette


    Just being curious, does anyone here think that total independence is only a good thing down to a certain size ?

    I'm used to read stuff like "people should govern themselves" and the like. But how do you define people ? As someone pointed out, you could argue that Highlands and Lowlands have cultures and peoples that are different enough not to be part of the same country.

    I do think that at some point, federalism in one form or another is a better option. Even though Scotland already has a fair amount of self-gov., perhaps devolving even more would be preferable to independence ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    This is the sort of scaremongering that is typical of the rightwing/yellow press in Britain. In a democratic world we are expected to believe that if the Scots choose independence then this will have "serious consequences for regional stability". From whom? Democrats?

    Or are British unionists again going to threaten army mutiny, armed resistance by citizens and much more à la 1913-1914 just because democracy overrules them once more?
    What's scaremongering to suggest Scotland leaving the union is a threat to regional stability? If Scotland got independence it would only encourage nationalists in Wales and perhaps even Cronwall to push for independence. This would not only undermine the United Kingdoms role as a great power on the world stage but would also undermine Northern Ireland's position as a constitute part of the United Kingdom closer to home. Partition is not the answer Rebelheart, I thought you of all people would agree with that.

    Besides even discussing this is pointless because the majority of Scottish people are rightly happy with their position in the United Kingdom.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What's scaremongering to suggest Scotland leaving the union is a threat to regional stability? If Scotland got independence it would only encourage nationalists in Wales and perhaps even Cronwall to push for independence. This would not only undermine the United Kingdoms role as a great power on the world stage but would also undermine Northern Ireland's position as a constitute part of the United Kingdom closer to home. Partition is not the answer Rebelheart, I thought you of all people would agree with that.

    Besides even discussing this is pointless because the majority of Scottish people are rightly happy with their position in the United Kingdom.


    It is rather ridiculus to suggest that the Scots democratically choosing Independance from the UK would destabilise the region. It may accelerate political change and lead to the further brake up of the UK, But that is far from the same thing as destabelising the region. The vastly more likely result is the breakup of the UK into a number of smaller stable nation states.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    LaBaguette wrote: »
    Just being curious, does anyone here think that total independence is only a good thing down to a certain size ?

    I'm used to read stuff like "people should govern themselves" and the like. But how do you define people ? As someone pointed out, you could argue that Highlands and Lowlands have cultures and peoples that are different enough not to be part of the same country.

    I do think that at some point, federalism in one form or another is a better option. Even though Scotland already has a fair amount of self-gov., perhaps devolving even more would be preferable to independence ?


    To be honest with you, In my opinion I think Nation states are only a good thing up to a certain size. The Larger the state the more inherent problems in my opinion, Becoming involved in a war becomes more likely, the voice of the individual citizen becomes less and less consequential, much more likely to have internal Ethnic tentions.

    Of course there will always be exceptions to that, but over all I would prefer to live in a small nation than a large.


  • Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭Knight990


    Knight990 - I'm not really sure than many in NI actually want 'freedom', most are happy to be governed as part of the UK and a sizeable number would prefre to be governed as part of a united Ireland.

    It's not so much whether they want 'freedom' or not, that's a debate for another day - what I meant was that it might show those who would usually resort to arms that there is a another way, that's all.

    It wouldn't solve every problem, but it would change how certain kinds of people view the situation I reckon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Kev_ps3 wrote: »
    I would like to see them get Independence. The English shouldn't have control over any people considering their appalling misrule over the century's.

    That's a ridiculous statement.

    There is absolutely nothing the English have done that wasn't with the support of the Scots. The British Empire would never have happened if it wasn't for the Scots and the Scots were more than responsible for their fair share of misrule.

    Tbh, I can't see an independant Scotland yet. Outside of a few Glasgow council estates there isn't really the appetite for it. The SNP benefited from a dislike for Labour and the Libs due to recent national politics and the Tories have never been big north of the border.

    If there was a referendum tomorrow it would fail miserably, unless that is they asked the English.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    That's a ridiculous statement.

    There is absolutely nothing the English have done that wasn't with the support of the Scots. The British Empire would never have happened if it wasn't for the Scots and the Scots were more than responsible for their fair share of misrule.

    Tbh, I can't see an independant Scotland yet. Outside of a few Glasgow council estates there isn't really the appetite for it. The SNP benefited from a dislike for Labour and the Libs due to recent national politics and the Tories have never been big north of the border.

    If there was a referendum tomorrow it would fail miserably, unless that is they asked the English.
    It won't happen. This is a completely non story to be honest and i think rather exaggerated. The Union will be around for many years to come.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    That's a ridiculous statement.

    There is absolutely nothing the English have done that wasn't with the support of the Scots. The British Empire would never have happened if it wasn't for the Scots and the Scots were more than responsible for their fair share of misrule.

    Tbh, I can't see an independant Scotland yet. Outside of a few Glasgow council estates there isn't really the appetite for it. The SNP benefited from a dislike for Labour and the Libs due to recent national politics and the Tories have never been big north of the border.

    If there was a referendum tomorrow it would fail miserably, unless that is they asked the English.

    I do think a independence ref wouldnt pass tomorrow but just wondering what is the feelings of the english regarding scottish independence?


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    It won't happen. This is a completely non story to be honest and i think rather exaggerated. The Union will be around for many years to come.

    An impending referendum that WILL happen is not a "non story", even if it does pass and remain part of the Uk the Union will be nothing but in name.
    The future of the union will not be realisticon the ground. Independant parliaments of the Welsh, N.I and Scotlan will only gain more power in the future, and with talk of Taxing powers being given to scotland themselves, the union may soon become obsolete


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    There is absolutely nothing the English have done that wasn't with the support of the Scots.

    The Acts of Union was done without the support of the Scots.

    I think Scotland under the leadership of the SNP has shown that it's more than capable of Governing itself.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That was the great doubt nationalists Scottish friends of mine had about independence - their view was that by and large Westminster at least treated all of Scotland equally.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    This image of the last elections are pretty telling of the widespread support for the SNP and their decision-making across Scotland.

    I'm not sure what 'nationalists' you've befriended in Scotland, but I can most certainly assure you - the few friends I have, meeting your description have no faith whatsoever in Westminster.

    With regards to the OP - I would welcome an independent and more democratic Scotland. As it stands, Scottish MP's hold about 9% of sway in Westminster. The parliament itself is largely controlled by England, and if you take into consideration that the UK isn't a 'single country', but rather a collective of countries and states - then it is quite appropriate to view England as the weight of the Union, and the rest as tag-alongs.

    I think Scotland could most certainly be a successful independent country. They have a great Government, and a remarkably intelligent society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Cathal O wrote: »
    An impending referendum that WILL happen is not a "non story", even if it does pass and remain part of the Uk the Union will be nothing but in name.
    The future of the union will not be realisticon the ground. Independant parliaments of the Welsh, N.I and Scotlan will only gain more power in the future, and with talk of Taxing powers being given to scotland themselves, the union may soon become obsolete
    So what? I don't get the big deal. I see no evidence that support for Scottish independence is enough to get an overall majority and to make it happen.

    Keeping the Union together is VERY important for England and people like David Cameron. David Cameron has given his support to keep the Union together which is positive. Lets hope he can keep working on that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    So what? I don't get the big deal. I see no evidence that support for Scottish independence is enough to get an overall majority and to make it happen.

    Keeping the Union together is VERY important for England and people like David Cameron. David Cameron has given his support to keep the Union together which is positive. Lets hope he can keep working on that.

    Well the SNP being in power would be "evidence" that a bigger proportion of the scottish people would prefer out of the union than before, while i accept there may be a sizable proportion of voters for the SNP that would not vote for independance i think there is evidence to suggest a referendum is needed, and that the result should be accepted either way

    Keeping the union together being important for England is irrelevant, it is out of their hands at this stage. The scottish an NI parliaments have the powers to call referendums themselves so it doesnt matter whether david cameron supports the union or not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Well the SNP being in power would be "evidence" that a bigger proportion of the scottish people would prefer out of the union than before
    Not really. Could be a lot of reasons why people voted for the SNP in such big numbers. People who are pro union seem to think they are at least competent in running Scotland but who is to say what will happen in the next few years? Perhaps more might be expected of them? They could have a complete nightmare.


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Not really. Could be a lot of reasons why people voted for the SNP in such big numbers. People who are pro union seem to think they are at least competent in running Scotland but who is to say what will happen in the next few years? Perhaps more might be expected of them? They could have a complete nightmare.

    Have you ever read discussion boards or newspapers around the time of scottish devolution? The same arguments that are arising now have been raised before, the sky did not fall in when devolution was given, in fact business in fact grew in scotland.
    All I am saying is that the only way to answer this question is to call a referendum, that will settle the question, for now at least. Would you answer that last point just
    thanks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I do think a independence ref wouldnt pass tomorrow but just wondering what is the feelings of the english regarding scottish independence?


    last poll I saw had about 40% of Scotland in favour of an independant Scotland. The same poll showed of 50% of people in England in favour of an independent Scotland.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    The Acts of Union was done without the support of the Scots.

    Really? that's odd. how did it come about then? lets see what wikipedia has to say
    The Acts of Union were two Parliamentary Acts passed in 1706 by the Parliament of England, and in 1707 by the Parliament of Scotland, which put into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union that had been agreed on 22 July 1706, following negotiation between commissioners representing the parliaments of the two countries. The Acts joined the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland (previously separate states, with separate legislatures but with the same monarch) into a single, united kingdom named "Great Britain".[1]
    The two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne from his double first cousin twice removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Although described as a Union of Crowns, until 1707 there were in fact two separate Crowns resting on the same head (as opposed to the implied creation of a single Crown and a single Kingdom, exemplified by the later Kingdom of Great Britain) . There had been three attempts in 1606, 1667, and 1689 to unite the two countries by Acts of Parliament, but it was not until the early 18th century that the idea had the will of both political establishments behind them, albeit for rather different reasons.
    The Acts took effect on 1 May 1707. On this date, the Scottish Parliament and the English Parliament united to form the Parliament of Great Britain, based in the Palace of Westminster in London, the home of the English Parliament.[2] Hence, the Acts are referred to as the Union of the Parliaments. On the Union, historian Simon Schama said "What began as a hostile merger, would end in a full partnership in the most powerful going concern in the world ... it was one of the most astonishing transformations in European history."[3]


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Really? that's odd. how did it come about then? lets see what wikipedia has to say

    I suggest buying a history book. The Acts of Union did not have the support of the Scots.

    But if you want to go buy your wiki-article, then we can do that too.
    Even more direct bribery was also said to be a factor.[21] £20,000 (£240,000 Scots) was dispatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow. James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament, received £12,325, the majority of the funding. (Some contend that all of this money was properly accounted for as compensation for loss of office, pensions and so forth not outwith the usual run of government. It is perhaps a debate that will never be set to rest. However, modern research has shown that payments were made to supporters of union that appear not to have been overdue salaries. At least four payments were made to people who were not even members of the Scottish Parliament.) Robert Burns referred to this:

    We were bought and sold for English Gold,
    Sic a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation
    .
    Some of the money was used to hire spies, such as Daniel Defoe; his first reports were of vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union. "A Scots rabble is the worst of its kind," he reported, "for every Scot in favour there is 99 against".
    The Treaty could be considered unpopular in Scotland: Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, the only member of the Scottish negotiating team against union, noted that "The whole nation appears against the Union" and even Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I suggest buying a history book. The Acts of Union did not have the support of the Scots.

    But if you want to go buy your wiki-article, then we can do that too.

    The Scots managed to bankrupt their country after a failed attempt at building a colony. Union and a bail out by the English was a way out for them.

    If it didn't have the support of the Scots, who the **** signed the act?

    The Scot were willing partners in the union and fully exploited it for all it was worth, whilst at the same time pointing the finger at the English.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    If it didn't have the support of the Scots, who the **** signed the act?

    So basically, you ignored a rebuttal that destroyed your entire argument and then expect me to answer the same question I have already answered? The Scottish people did not support the acts. This is widely accepted. It was passed by a political elite through bribery and greed.

    I'm not sure how clearer I can be on this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    It is rather ridiculus to suggest that the Scots democratically choosing Independance from the UK would destabilise the region. It may accelerate political change and lead to the further brake up of the UK, But that is far from the same thing as destabelising the region. The vastly more likely result is the breakup of the UK into a number of smaller stable nation states.
    How could the break up of a regional great power like the United Kingdom be anything but destabilising?It won't happen though. It's questionable whether or not Scotland is economically viable nevermind Wales or Northern Ireland.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So basically, you ignored a rebuttal that destroyed your entire argument and then expect me to answer the same question I have already answered? The Scottish people did not support the acts. This is widely accepted. It was passed by a political elite through bribery and greed.

    I'm not sure how clearer I can be on this.

    A lot of the negotiating team received nothing for voting in favour of the union.

    The allegation of it being the result of greed and corruption is as disingenuous as the other view that England bailed out Scotland.

    The union had been discussed, proposed, rejected and revised for the best part of the previous century and whilst unpopular in Scotland, it wasn't as unpopular as is often suggested. That doesn't negate the fact that the negotiating team were inept and got a bad deal.

    But to say as you originally did that it was against the wished of the Scots implies some sort of forced annexation by England which is not what happened.

    You have to take other factors in play at the time as well, such as the Scottish act of security, the English Alien act, the act of settlement and of course the Darien scheme.

    And of course all this was going on whilst the House of Stewart were on the throne.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/english-demand-say-on-future-of-scotland-1.1110272
    ALMOST half of English people oppose Scottish independence and want to have a say if Scots vote to control their own affairs, a new poll shows.

    :pac:

    Transalation = Fvck off Scotland (in the nicest possibly way).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    How would a referendum work? Would Scottish people living in England, or English people living in Scotland get a vote?


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    How would a referendum work? Would Scottish people living in England, or English people living in Scotland get a vote?

    I would imagine anyone with a scottish address would have a vote, being in the country for X amount of years, the same way as it is currently for parliament elections.


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    Westminister at the minute is quite ridiculous in that while the welsh, N.I and Scottish have their own parliament to vote in their own domestic issues without external interference, the english themselves do not have a domestic parliament, just a "brittish" one. This means that people representing Scotland, N.I. and wales are able to vote on purely domestic english issues, which makes no sense.

    If independence was passed i am sure the voting would remain the same and that voting for westminister would simply stop, for use of a better word, and the current parliament would simply take on all powers of westminster regarding scotland.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,496 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Cathal O wrote: »
    Westminister at the minute is quite ridiculous in that while the welsh, N.I and Scottish have their own parliament to vote in their own domestic issues without external interference, the english themselves do not have a domestic parliament, just a "brittish" one. This means that people representing Scotland, N.I. and wales are able to vote on purely domestic english issues, which makes no sense.

    If independence was passed i am sure the voting would remain the same and that voting for westminister would simply stop, for use of a better word, and the current parliament would simply take on all powers of westminster regarding scotland.

    Yes, the famous West Lothian Question


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    A lot of the negotiating team received nothing for voting in favour of the union.

    Some did, some didn't. It's irrelevant - as it did not have the support of the 'people', which I have already outlined previously.
    The allegation of it being the result of greed and corruption is as disingenuous as the other view that England bailed out Scotland.

    No, it isn't disingenuous. There is strong evidence to support the theory that bribery played a large role in cementing the acts of union.

    Here's what's quite apparent to me. You have jumped into this argument to be the 'opposing voice', without actually having a grasp on even the most basic historical issues of the Acts of Union. Acknowledging that, you lack the dignity to admit that you were wrong - and now continue to peddle the notion that the Acts of Union was supported by Scotland. It was not. The majority of the Scottish people opposed it. The political elite that did support it, some did so only because of bribery. This is a historical fact that every single historian would attest to.
    The union had been discussed, proposed, rejected and revised for the best part of the previous century and whilst unpopular in Scotland, it wasn't as unpopular as is often suggested.

    Based on what evidence? It's very easy for you to state that it wasn't unpopular. I have provided a number of quotes, from even the most ardent Unionists of the time who supported my view that the Scottish people overall were not in favour of the Union. Sir John Clerk for example who stated that the treaty was "contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom".
    But to say as you originally did that it was against the wished of the Scots implies some sort of forced annexation by England which is not what happened.

    I say it was against the wishes of the Scots, because it was against the wishes of the Scots. It was the Scottish political elite, many of which whom were bribed passed the Acts.

    Show me evidence that the Scottish people as a majority supported the union. I have already pointed out a number of quotes from that specific time-frame, that demonstrate the complete opposite.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    It was the early part of the 18th century. Everything that was done was done purely for the benefit of the political elite. You seem to think that democracy as we know it today existed and that the wishes of a Highland farmer, or a Glaswegian mill worker would even be considered. Or for that matter, would their views make up any of the four fifths.

    You take an event that happened 400 years ago and relate it to modern day logic.

    Scotland needed to sort out internal problems, one of which was the fact the 25% of the money in circulation had been lost in the Darien scheme. Union with England was seen as their best option at the time, similar to the bank bailout today.


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    It was the early part of the 18th century. Everything that was done was done purely for the benefit of the political elite. You seem to think that democracy as we know it today existed and that the wishes of a Highland farmer, or a Glaswegian mill worker would even be considered. Or for that matter, would their views make up any of the four fifths.

    You take an event that happened 400 years ago and relate it to modern day logic.

    Scotland needed to sort out internal problems, one of which was the fact the 25% of the money in circulation had been lost in the Darien scheme. Union with England was seen as their best option at the time, similar to the bank bailout today.

    You have just went against your own point. While you originally stated that the scottish favoured the union , now you have backtracked and stated it was for the "political elite". This was exactly the counter point you have been arguing against. The political elite indeed voted for the union due to the ir own monetary interests. Thanks for backing up our earlier posts


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    It was the early part of the 18th century. Everything that was done was done purely for the benefit of the political elite. You seem to think that democracy as we know it today existed and that the wishes of a Highland farmer, or a Glaswegian mill worker would even be considered. Or for that matter, would their views make up any of the four fifths.

    You take an event that happened 400 years ago and relate it to modern day logic.

    Scotland needed to sort out internal problems, one of which was the fact the 25% of the money in circulation had been lost in the Darien scheme. Union with England was seen as their best option at the time, similar to the bank bailout today.

    And yet despite being universally unpopular with the masses, it was still unpopular enough to require four attempts over 100 years to pass acceptance even with the political elite - it was hardly a case of Scotland jumping at the chance of a union thought up and signed up to over a single historic event...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Cathal O wrote: »
    You have just went against your own point. While you originally stated that the scottish favoured the union , now you have backtracked and stated it was for the "political elite". This was exactly the counter point you have been arguing against. The political elite indeed voted for the union due to the ir own monetary interests. Thanks for backing up our earlier posts

    The political elite were Scottish were they not?

    It wasn't just the political elite either, it was an assortment of merchants, traders, fish farmers and Bishops.

    One of the biggest anti union voices was the Scottish Presbytarian Church, but most of them changed their tune after certain conditions were included in the final draft.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement