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

2456716

Comments

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


    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...

    And I believe two of those attempts were instigated by the Scots and rejected by the English parliament.


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    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.

    NO they were english loyalists that were transfered to scotland in order to become landlords of scottish estates , only landlords could vote so therfore the union was passed.

    What the original point was, that while the "Scottish Parliament" passed the act, the parliament did not represent the scottish as a whole, and no matter what you counter argue, you will have to accept that the act of union with scotland was not supported by the vast majority of scottish people


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


    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.

    So do you finally accept that the Acts of Union did not have the support of the Scottish people?


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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    So do you finally accept that the Acts of Union did not have the support of the Scottish people?

    You originally stated that the act was against the will of the Scots. That implies the Scots were forced into the union which they were not. There was a significant amount of support for the union as there had been over the previous century.

    Was it deeply unpopular? Yes it was and at one point a majority against it. I'm not sure what the Kirk agreeing to the union did though, that was the biggest opponent and they appeared to be won over.

    It was also unpopular south of the border as well and was nearly repealed a few years later.

    Ultimately though, both countries benefited from the union.


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


    You originally stated that the act was against the will of the Scots.

    It was against the will of the Scots. 3/4's of the population according to an ardent Unionist of the time. If that's not "against the will", then I don't know what is.
    That implies the Scots were forced into the union which they were not.

    If the majority of the population was not in favour of the union, and the acts were still passed - then yes, they were forced into a union without a mandate from the people.
    There was a significant amount of support for the union as there had been over the previous century.

    Hoggleswash. Define 'significant support'? 20%? The only number that counted was the 'majority' - And it did not have a majority support. Until you show me evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that you still have failed to gather the dignity to accept that you are wrong.
    Was it deeply unpopular? Yes it was and at one point a majority against it.

    So in the same post - you stated that there was significant support for the union, then then accept that the majority opposed it. I've never seen so many contradictions in one single post.

    I don't know whether to find your revisionism amusing, or shocking. At best, it's mildly annoying.


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


    We are arguing over semantics to be honest.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 206 ✭✭Mr_Hat


    Personally I think Scottish Independance, its a REALLY REALLY bad thing for anyone living in the Highlands. As someone who has spent some time in the Highlands. I can testify that there infastructure is amazing. The roads are very well maintained and frequently repaired. Which is very importnat after the cold winters. Plenty of local schools, access to health care and hospitals etc, etc. While the cities of Edinbourogh and Glasgow might gain, the Highlands will definatly loose. Scotland just hasnt the cash to look after the area as well as was when in the UK.


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


    We are arguing over semantics to be honest.

    No, I don't think so. It was enacted without the consent or approval of the scottish people.
    You take an event that happened 400 years ago and relate it to modern day logic..

    That would have been you, arguing that the Scottish parliament was representative.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,522 ✭✭✭✭dsmythy


    You are arguing about a bunch of dead guys from 300 years ago. What do the Scottish of 2011 think? Not in favour at the moment. All you need to know.


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


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, I don't think so. It was enacted without the consent or approval of the scottish people.

    That would have been you, arguing that the Scottish parliament was representative.

    So they should have had a referendum on it. I'll make sure the ECHR is informed.


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


    So they should have had a referendum on it. I'll make sure the ECHR is informed.

    For you to claim
    There is absolutely nothing the English have done that wasn't with the support of the Scots.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73127285&postcount=27

    and that claim be true, yes indeed they should have. But of course they did not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    dsmythy wrote: »
    You are arguing about a bunch of dead guys from 300 years ago. What do the Scottish of 2011 think? Not in favour at the moment. All you need to know.

    A SNP party in power would suggest otherwise. Only a referendum would settle this issue. Opinion polls are not 100% accurate. Being asked once out of the blue an opinion is nothing compared to a person being faced with an answer in a ballot booth that will have a significant effect for the rest of their lives. and will have a consequence. There is no consequence for the people answering these opinion polls which lead me to doubt their complete accuracy


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


    Cathal O wrote: »
    A SNP party in power would suggest otherwise. Only a referendum would settle this issue. Opinion polls are not 100% accurate. Being asked once out of the blue an opinion is nothing compared to a person being faced with an answer in a ballot booth that will have a significant effect for the rest of their lives. and will have a consequence. There is no consequence for the people answering these opinion polls which lead me to doubt their complete accuracy

    It has been said many times on this form that the SNP in power does not necessarily mean a majority support Independence.

    Many may have voted for the SNP because they were the best of a bad lot.


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


    Nodin wrote: »
    For you to claim


    http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73127285&postcount=27

    and that claim be true, yes indeed they should have. But of course they did not.

    Are you implying that the English parliament should have offered the Scottish people a referendum on the act of union?

    Did the Scots get a referendum on the Auld Alliance?


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭Cathal O


    It has been said many times on this form that the SNP in power does not necessarily mean a majority support Independence.

    Many may have voted for the SNP because they were the best of a bad lot.

    We cannot assume anything, but as i have been banging on about in most of not all of my other posts here which noone really seems to have picked up on is that a referendum would end the question, instead they go to a different point in my posts which suggests otherwise despite my views being clear !


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


    Are you implying that the English parliament should have offered the Scottish people a referendum on the act of union?

    Did the Scots get a referendum on the Auld Alliance?

    ......well, the introduction of represenative democracy into Europe would have been welcome, as well as womens rights and the abolishment of sectarianism before the 1st crusade, but thats the 'alternative history' forums remit and really has no bearing.

    The truth is that you're making a claim that has no basis in fact.


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


    Cathal O wrote: »
    We cannot assume anything, but as i have been banging on about in most of not all of my other posts here which noone really seems to have picked up on is that a referendum would end the question, instead they go to a different point in my posts which suggests otherwise despite my views being clear !

    If the SNP call a referendum and there is an overwhelming vote to stay in the union, where does it leave them politically?

    Their number one policy is contrary to the majority of the country they claim to represent.

    Alec Salmond would have to resign.


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


    Nodin wrote: »
    ......well, the introduction of represenative democracy into Europe would have been welcome, as well as womens rights and the abolishment of sectarianism before the 1st crusade, but thats the 'alternative history' forums remit and really has no bearing.

    The truth is that you're making a claim that has no basis in fact.

    The only "Facts" we have are two quotes in Wikipedia tbh.


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


    We are arguing over semantics to be honest.

    I wasn't arguing. I was correcting your erroneous claims. There was no basis for argument, as you did not provide any evidence to support your argument. I did.


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


    The only "Facts" we have are two quotes in Wikipedia tbh.

    And who was it that introduced the Wikipedia article in the first place? You. You're attacking the basis for your own argument. Hilarious.

    And if Wikipedia isn't good enough for you, then perhaps an article from the BBC which carries the exact same quotes may be more to your likings:
    The Treaty of Union was clearly unpopular among the wider Scottish people. Civil unrest and public disorder took place in several Scottish towns and the threat of widespread civil unrest resulted in the imposition of martial law by the Parliament. George Lockhart of Carnwath, a Jacobite and the only member of the Scottish negotiating team who was not pro-incorporation, noted that `The whole nation appears against the Union'. 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'.

    So will you finally accept that you were wrong, and that the Acts of Union did not have the support of the Scottish people?


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


    The only "Facts" we have are two quotes in Wikipedia tbh.

    Well, if you'd like to present a theory - and one that would go against the established historical record I might add - that Scotland was a representative democracy at the time of the act of union and that no bribery was involved then by all means, go forth and get researching. I'd suggest that learning to admit one was wrong was an easier furrow to plough both in terms of time, effort and reward, but thats me.


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


    If the SNP call a referendum and there is an overwhelming vote to stay in the union, where does it leave them politically?

    Their number one policy is contrary to the majority of the country they claim to represent.

    Alec Salmond would have to resign.

    Nine years, potentially nine years with a majority tory government, could mean a far closer vote than many people would like to imagine.

    I don't really believe that scottish independence is likely, I think most scots are aware they have the best of both worlds with a devolved parliament and still being part of the UK. Mind you, between the lib dems getting into bed with a majority tory government, much to the chagrin of many scottish voters who deliberately voted to keep the tories out - they will still be a political force to be reckoned with, north of the border at least. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    Nodin wrote: »
    Well, if you'd like to present a theory - and one that would go against the established historical record I might add - that Scotland was a representative democracy at the time of the act of union and that no bribery was involved then by all means, go forth and get researching. I'd suggest that learning to admit one was wrong was an easier furrow to plough both in terms of time, effort and reward, but thats me.

    Please answer me this; do you use this particular internet message board as a place to engage in often petty debates to in order to obtain a sense of superiority over other users? I believe you enjoy a sense of triumphalism and smugness. The amount of time you dedicate to these online conquests of percieved intellectualism are a bit sad, but thats just me.

    The very fact that the Scottish National Party recorded a quite stunning victory in the local elections yet have no desire to call a referendum at any point for years to come suggests that just about every perso (including the most die hard of nationalists in the upper echelons of their party) understand vast numbers of the votes cast were not as a result of their desire to make England an independent power and lower Scotland to the level of a second rate European nation in terms of global influence and prestige.

    I fail to understand this strange romantic view many Irish people have of Scotland. They seem to conveniently forget that there is more of a culture of rampant anti Irishness and anti Catholicism among some communities in Scotland than there is in other British regions. This socially accepted celtic racism (ie celtic nations standing in oppositon of Germanic England) is completely unwarranted.

    Anyway I would ask those who say they would celebrate an independent Scotland, what happened to the will of the people being the most important factor in this situation? With every poll going suggesting that Scottish unionists outnumber Scottish nationalists by considerable distance, shouldn't you accept that the people who count do not subscibe to your ideologies and agendas will win through?

    Anyway, I'm all for Scottish independence. And Welsh Independence. And Northern Irish independence/transfer to Dublin's control. As I'm sure are growing numbers of English people.

    Oh the English, the one group whose voice will never be listened to. Not small enough a nation for a sense of nationalism to be deemed harmless and acceptable, not big enough for a laid back sense of a secure future to be warranted either.


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


    Barring tiny pockets of the west coast - closest to and composed mostly of irish exports, I haven't come across any rampant anti-irish or anti-catholic sentiments in scotland...


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


    Anyway I would ask those who say they would celebrate an independent Scotland, what happened to the will of the people being the most important factor in this situation?

    If Scotland was independent, then it would only be through the will of the people. Therefore, your question has no merit.


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


    Please (.........)just me.
    .

    The post, not the poster.
    Anyway I would ask those who say they would celebrate an independent Scotland, what happened to the will of the people being the most important factor in this situation? With every poll going suggesting that Scottish unionists outnumber Scottish nationalists by considerable distance, shouldn't you accept that the people who count do not subscibe to your ideologies and agendas will win through?
    .

    As has been pointed out, Scottish independence would have to be acheived democratically, thus celebrating scottish independence would be celebrating the will of the scottish people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    dlofnep wrote: »
    If Scotland was independent, then it would only be through the will of the people. Therefore, your question has no merit.

    Of course it does. Look back through the thread, people have said they would be happy to see an independent Scotland. It is clear that Scottish unionists, if the term is correct, are a far greater group in terms of numbers than those who want a Scottish republic and shall remain so for the considerable future. They are putting their own ideological views ahead of those who count.

    Would you not find it quite abrupt if someone came along and started exclaiming how delighted they would be if Britain regained control of Ireland?


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


    Would you not find it quite abrupt if someone came along and started exclaiming how delighted they would be if Britain regained control of Ireland?

    I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, and anyone is entitled to hold such a view - regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

    If I state that I welcome an independent Scotland, it is purely for the sake of discussion. My reasons for it are that I find the Union wholly undemocratic in nature, faith in Scotland to Govern themselves as an independent state, and for Scottish people to have a say in their own national and international affairs at every possible level.

    If the Scottish people reject independence - then so be it. That is for them to decide. But in the spirit of freedom of speech, and discussion - people are more than welcome to express how they would feel about it. Afterall, is that not what this thread is about?


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


    Of course it does. Look back through the thread, people have said they would be happy to see an independent Scotland. It is clear that Scottish unionists, if the term is correct, are a far greater group in terms of numbers than those who want a Scottish republic and shall remain so for the considerable future. They are putting their own ideological views ahead of those who count.

    Would you not find it quite abrupt if someone came along and started exclaiming how delighted they would be if Britain regained control of Ireland?


    scottish unionists are the most staunch of all britts , well , if you leave aside thier cousins in northern ireland


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Dannyboy83


    Lemming wrote: »
    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.

    I agree with this.
    Many of the Scots I've spoken to recently about it, don't see it as 'freedom'.
    They say only we see it as freedom, to them it's simply one ousting one crowd to install a worse crowd, and they frequently hold Ireland up as an example of why not to do it.

    Many of them have the attitude that the English want to cut them off now that they've used up all their oil and they won't allow that to happen.


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


    Please answer me this; do you use this particular internet message board as a place to engage in often petty debates to in order to obtain a sense of superiority over other users? I believe you enjoy a sense of triumphalism and smugness. The amount of time you dedicate to these online conquests of percieved intellectualism are a bit sad, but thats just me.

    The very fact that the Scottish National Party recorded a quite stunning victory in the local elections yet have no desire to call a referendum at any point for years to come suggests that just about every perso (including the most die hard of nationalists in the upper echelons of their party) understand vast numbers of the votes cast were not as a result of their desire to make England an independent power and lower Scotland to the level of a second rate European nation in terms of global influence and prestige.

    I fail to understand this strange romantic view many Irish people have of Scotland. They seem to conveniently forget that there is more of a culture of rampant anti Irishness and anti Catholicism among some communities in Scotland than there is in other British regions. This socially accepted celtic racism (ie celtic nations standing in oppositon of Germanic England) is completely unwarranted.

    Anyway I would ask those who say they would celebrate an independent Scotland, what happened to the will of the people being the most important factor in this situation? With every poll going suggesting that Scottish unionists outnumber Scottish nationalists by considerable distance, shouldn't you accept that the people who count do not subscibe to your ideologies and agendas will win through?

    Anyway, I'm all for Scottish independence. And Welsh Independence. And Northern Irish independence/transfer to Dublin's control. As I'm sure are growing numbers of English people.

    Oh the English, the one group whose voice will never be listened to. Not small enough a nation for a sense of nationalism to be deemed harmless and acceptable, not big enough for a laid back sense of a secure future to be warranted either.

    you have to remember that the Irish Republican movement is, essentially, anti English and will never miss an opportunity to portray the nasty English as oppressing the poor unfortunate Celt.

    This is born out by the instruction in "The Green Book" issued to IRA volunteers that no attacks were to take place in Celtic countries.

    What Dlofnep was trying to do in post 31 was to claim that the poor old Scots had union forced on them by the nasty old English, which isn't the case, it was something entered into by the Scottish Parliament, after being initially proposed by them several years earlier.

    Sure, the majority of ordinary Scots were against it, but they were probably against the Auld Alliance as well, but that obviously isnt too much of a problem for Irish Republicans, because that involved fighting England.

    Your average Irish Republican wants to see the UK break up, not because of any great lovee for democracy (The Irish Republican movement has, over the last 90 years showed several times it cares for democracy only when it suits) but out of a sense of Schadenfraude for the English.

    I've yet to meet a Scotsman that seriously wants independence, not because they particularly want to stay in the union, but because they see the benefits of more political xpression being seriously outweighed by the simple fact that they don't for one minute believe that the SNP are anything like capable of running a country.


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


    you have to remember that the Irish Republican movement is, essentially, anti English and will never miss an opportunity to portray the nasty English as oppressing the poor unfortunate Celt.

    Oh yeah, the Irish Republican movement was created to scorn at the English. And not for the obvious ideology of creating an Irish Republic, free from British rule, right? If you were to write that paragraph as an academic assessment of Irish Republicanism, you'd be given a grade to match the first letter of your username.
    What Dlofnep was trying to do in post 31 was to claim that the poor old Scots had union forced on them by the nasty old English

    No, dlofnep didn't introduce any adjectives whatsoever. Nor was I "trying" to do anything. I succeeded in countering your assertion that the Union was supported by the Scots. It was not. And you still haven't been mature enough to accept that you were wrong.
    , which isn't the case, it was something entered into by the Scottish Parliament, after being initially proposed by them several years earlier.

    ...without the support of the Scots.
    Sure, the majority of ordinary Scots were against it.........

    And that's ok, is it? So long as the political elite supported it - it is considered as being 'supported by the Scots'?
    I've yet to meet a Scotsman that seriously wants independence, not because they particularly want to stay in the union, but because they see the benefits of more political xpression being seriously outweighed by the simple fact that they don't for one minute believe that the SNP are anything like capable of running a country.

    And yet - they continue to vote for that same political party in a majority to govern their country? No faith in the SNP aye?

    1437-1304931585.jpg?amplada-maxima=180


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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Oh yeah, the Irish Republican movement was created to scorn at the English. And not for the obvious ideology of creating an Irish Republic, free from British rule, right? If you were to write that paragraph as an academic assessment of Irish Republicanism, you'd be given a grade to match the first letter of your username.

    Really? explain the ruling in the green book then.

    The Republican movement may have been set up for Irish independence, but today it is essentially anti English.


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, dlofnep didn't introduce any adjectives whatsoever. Nor was I "trying" to do anything. I succeeded in countering your assertion that the Union was supported by the Scots. It was not. And you still haven't been mature enough to accept that you were wrong.

    semantics. The Scots proposed it, as they had done several times over the previous century.

    The Union was a Scottish concept, not an English one. It was unfortunate for the average Joe that they didn't get a say, but the world wasn't exactly a bastion of democracy at the trun of the 18th century.


    dlofnep wrote: »
    And that's ok, is it? So long as the political elite supported it - it is considered as being 'supported by the Scots'?

    that's pretty much how it goes unfortunately.


    dlofnep wrote: »
    And yet - they continue to vote for that same political party in a majority to govern their country? No faith in the SNP aye?

    1437-1304931585.jpg?amplada-maxima=180

    what happened to the referendum Alec promised in 2010?

    He is no fool, he knows there is no great support for it.

    Of the 59 MPs elected to Westminster, the SNP have a whopping 6. Does that show a degree of confidence in them?


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


    The Republican movement may have been set up for Irish independence, but today it is essentially anti English.

    No, it is not essentially anti-English. It is driven by an aspiration to seen an end to British rule in Ireland. I suppose you're going to suggest that I am anti-English also? Ad hominem is the least skilled form of debate. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed it.
    semantics. The Scots proposed it, as they had done several times over the previous century.

    Semantics? There is nothing semantical about the majority of Scots opposing the Union. I'm glad to see that you view democracy with such a casual contempt.
    The Union was a Scottish concept, not an English one. It was unfortunate for the average Joe that they didn't get a say, but the world wasn't exactly a bastion of democracy at the trun of the 18th century.

    Unfortunate?

    Will you accept that the Union was not supported by the Scottish people? I mean seriously, I have better things to do with my time than to chase you up for an acknowledgement of your own fallibility.
    what happened to the referendum Alec promised in 2010?

    You are surely referring to the referendum bill? It at the time did not have support from the opposition, and therefore would not have been passed. The SNP are now in a political position of strength where the opposition can no longer dictate such a referendum. Such a referendum would require a campaign to educate the general public on the pros and cons of such a move - The SNP are right not to jump into it from the deep end. It would serve their interests, and the interests of the Scottish people for a number of public debates to be held specifically on the issue, with a campaign extending a significant period of time to ensure that the coverage is balanced, and that the general public is aware of the potential outcome.

    Of the 59 MPs elected to Westminster, the SNP have a whopping 6. Does that show a degree of confidence in them?

    Actually it doesn't demonstrate anything. The Scottish people by and large, vote for Labour because a single Scottish-based party does not have the political strength in Westminster to serve their interests. Therefore, they see it better to vote for whichever the lesser of the two evils are - in their case, usually Labour (as the Tories are held with contempt in Scotland).

    The majority of Scottish policies are determined from within the Scottish assembly. The fact that the Scottish public have voted for the SNP in a majority leads me to believe that they are very comfortable with the SNP governing the country (which is what they are doing at the moment, with the exception of a few areas).


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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    You are surely referring to the referendum bill? It at the time did not have support from the opposition, and therefore would not have been passed. The SNP are now in a political position of strength where the opposition can no longer dictate such a referendum. Such a referendum would require a campaign to educate the general public on the pros and cons of such a move - The SNP are right not to jump into it from the deep end. It would serve their interests, and the interests of the Scottish people for a number of public debates to be held specifically on the issue, with a campaign extending a significant period of time to ensure that the coverage is balanced, and that the general public is aware of the potential outcome.




    Actually it doesn't demonstrate anything. The Scottish people by and large, vote for Labour because a single Scottish-based party does not have the political strength in Westminster to serve their interests. Therefore, they see it better to vote for whichever the lesser of the two evils are - in their case, usually Labour (as the Tories are held with contempt in Scotland).

    The majority of Scottish policies are determined from within the Scottish assembly. The fact that the Scottish public have voted for the SNP in a majority leads me to believe that they are very comfortable with the SNP governing the country (which is what they are doing at the moment, with the exception of a few areas).

    Or that the Scottish trust the SNP to make local decisions, but not national ones.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 882 ✭✭✭LondonIrish90


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, it is not essentially anti-English. It is driven by an aspiration to seen an end to British rule in Ireland. I suppose you're going to suggest that I am anti-English also? Ad hominem is the least skilled form of debate. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed it.


    Maybe you are not anti-English, but would you not agree that staunch Irish republicans are more likely to hold more extreme anti English/British viewpoints? I have no statistical evidence, only limited personal experience. However, it is this sort of experience that most people go on. I don't think we will find many opinion polls on the subject of England from an Irish republican viewpoint on google.

    Many of the views of staunch Irish republicanism in England which originated in the late 20th century still endure. For obvious reasons there would be a fair bit of tension/hostility and a lot of percieved negative emotion. In many cases things like this endure for a reason. Clearly whether this belief is misguided or not is not the real problem, it is the hostilty/suspicion which evidently still exists which is the problem.


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


    Or that the Scottish trust the SNP to make local decisions, but not national ones.

    No. And you missed about 100 other points. And the Scottish assembly decide on a number of 'national' issues - such as education, health, justice and agriculture.

    The reality is, the SNP cannot form a Government in Westminster, or even a minority coalition partner. Therefore, it would be seen as futile to vote for them in the Westminster elections.

    But when it comes to voting for the Scottish Government, where a substantial amount of policy for Scotland alone is created - they trust in, and vote for in a majority for the SNP.


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


    ................

    What Dlofnep was trying to do in post 31 was to claim that the poor old Scots had union forced on them by the nasty old English, which isn't the case, it was something entered into by the Scottish Parliament, after being initially proposed by them several years earlier.

    ..............

    This nonsense has been debunked already. The Parliament was not representative, bribery was used and the population - as far as could be gauged - were against it.
    Really? explain the ruling in the green book ...

    The colour I'm seeing now is red, and there is a distinctive odour of fish about the place.
    It was unfortunate for the average Joe that they didn't get a say, but the world wasn't exactly a bastion of democracy at the trun of the 18th century....

    ...which, of course, contradicts what you stated earlier.
    ......the poor old Scots had union forced on them by the nasty old English, which isn't the case, it was something entered into by the Scottish Parliament, after being initially proposed by them several years earlier


    You do realise that, I trust?


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


    Maybe you are not anti-English

    There is no maybe about it. I have no ill will towards the English public, and I challenge anyone on here to prove otherwise and neither does the broader Republican movement.
    , but would you not agree that staunch Irish republicans are more likely to hold more extreme anti English/British viewpoints?

    Anti-British in terms of foreign policies, and war? Absolutely. Anti-British/English in terms of holding a grudge against the average English-person? Absolutely not.

    The so-called 'Republicans' that actually match your description, are in a tiny minority and have no electoral success anywhere on this island. And I know them all too well - as one of them threatened to 'get me' for expressing my views on their tactics and anti-Brit attitude a few months back on a night out.

    You see, it would be much easier for you to go down the route of stereo-typing a broad collective of people. That way, you get to paint those who are educated independent thinkers, and drunken louts under the same banner. I am an Irish Republican, and I am very unapologetic about that. I have never once mistreated anyone because of their nationality.


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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No. And you missed about 100 other points. And the Scottish assembly decide on a number of 'national' issues - such as education, health, justice and agriculture.
    how many? I ignored them to get back to the subject tbh.


    dlofnep wrote: »
    The reality is, the SNP cannot form a Government in Westminster, or even a minority coalition partner. Therefore, it would be seen as futile to vote for them in the Westminster elections.

    But when it comes to voting for the Scottish Government, where a substantial amount of policy for Scotland alone is created - they trust in, and vote for in a majority for the SNP.

    you're making as big a guess there as I am.

    to be honest, I think what actually happened is that Labour were losing support after trashing the economy and the Lib Dems lost a lot of credability going into coalition with the tories, which benefitted the SNP.

    It will be interesting to see what happenes over the next term with regards a referendum. I think it is completely the wrong time for the SNP to call one whilst the economy is in the crapper and it looks like it could be for a while.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    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.

    As a Unionist it might surprise you to learn that I don't care either way :eek: If Scotland votes to leave the Union then that's cool, and that's a lot more money in the kitty for everybody else in the UK, the English would be only too happy to finally get rid of those Scot's once and for all, and they could finally have a Parliament all to themselves in Westminster, without any Scottish influence, Yum yum :) . . . .


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


    The UK is now in the ridiculous position where English students are being disadvantaged compared to Scottish one.

    Scottish students can attend a Scottish university for around £1,300, whereas English universities charge up to £9,000.

    The SNP have decided therefore that Scottish universities will charge English students the same, but can't charge students from other EU countries £9,000 because it contravenes EU law.

    EU laws only cover discrimination against citizens of other EU states, not discrimination within the same state.

    I have to hand it to Alec Salmond, he is certainly drumming up support for independence, albeit in England.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    dlofnep wrote: »
    The Scottish people by and large, vote for Labour because a single Scottish-based party does not have the political strength in Westminster to serve their interests. Therefore, they see it better to vote for whichever the lesser of the two evils are - in their case, usually Labour (as the Tories are held with contempt in Scotland).
    Interesting. So presumably, by the same logic, if Labour ran candidates in Northern Ireland, they’d clean up among the nationalist community?
    dlofnep wrote: »
    The fact that the Scottish public have voted for the SNP in a majority leads me to believe that they are very comfortable with the SNP governing the country (which is what they are doing at the moment, with the exception of a few areas).
    I think it’s far more likely that the SNP’s large return at the last assembly election was due in no small part to public discontent with Labour and the Lib Dems. If you think the majority of Scots are content to hand their futures over to Alex Salmond, you are seriously deluded. Besides, I have yet to meet a Scottish person who would not quite happily refer to themselves as both British and Scottish – this rather warped view of Scotland that Irish people seem to have never fails to amuse.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 427 ✭✭scotty_irish


    i live in scotland, have a lot of hardcore SNP friends and even they aren't pushing for independence. back when there was lots of oil it would've made economic sense - scotland doesn't have a massive amount of industry - methinks a serious decline in living standards is what independence will translate to. also, not a chance of there being a referendum in the next few years, let alex salmond sprout all the BS he wants - i'll eat my socks if there is - you can hold me to this.


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


    Alec Salmond is canny enough to know he wouldn't win a referendum on Scottish Independence in the next few years - which is why he's not proposing to have one.

    I can more likely see a process of creeping independence - where they get more and more powers until they can convince their own electorate that Scotland can go it alone.

    Off-topic, but I find it interesting that the proposal in Northern Ireland to allow them to have a low corporation tax rate, would be coupled with a decrease in the block grant. Presumably companies would not be sending their remittances back to London to be re-doled out in grants, but would be collected and spent locally.

    As someone said earlier, the UK is looking more and more like a federal state - even though they'd never actually put it like that.


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


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Interesting. So presumably, by the same logic, if Labour ran candidates in Northern Ireland, they’d clean up among the nationalist community?
    I think it’s far more likely that the SNP’s large return at the last assembly election was due in no small part to public discontent with Labour and the Lib Dems. If you think the majority of Scots are content to hand their futures over to Alex Salmond, you are seriously deluded. Besides, I have yet to meet a Scottish person who would not quite happily refer to themselves as both British and Scottish – this rather warped view of Scotland that Irish people seem to have never fails to amuse.

    Well as I said before certain people view the possibility of an independent Scotland as some sort of proxy Irish nationalism.

    Kind of 'we could not rid this country of the Brits but if the Scots get rid of them it will do fine for now'.


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


    Well as I said before certain people view the possibility of an independent Scotland as some sort of proxy Irish nationalism.

    Kind of 'we could not rid this country of the Brits but if the Scots get rid of them it will do fine for now'.

    I think there's also a hope that Scottish Independence might convince a million unionists that union with Ireland mightn't be the worst thing in the world.

    I not sure that it would, though.


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


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There is no maybe about it. I have no ill will towards the English public, and I challenge anyone on here to prove otherwise and neither does the broader Republican movement.


    As a republican myself I certainly have to say this is true. Even during the worst excesses of the tan war there were plenty of English people speaking out against what their government was doing to Ireland in their name.
    The British establishment has been the problem, Not the English people.


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


    LordSutch wrote: »
    As a Unionist it might surprise you to learn that I don't care either way :eek: If Scotland votes to leave the Union then that's cool, and that's a lot more money in the kitty for everybody else in the UK, the English would be only too happy to finally get rid of those Scot's once and for all, and they could finally have a Parliament all to themselves in Westminster, without any Scottish influence, Yum yum :) . . . .


    Its not surprising in the least to see that there are some Unionists that are not all that interested in Scotland, but i'm sure you will admit that some are, It would put those who Identify as 'Ulster Scot' in a somewhat awkward position. Who would they want Union with? A rump UK or an Independant Scotland?

    Also, Where did you find the figures that show Scotland is a drain on the UK economy overall? I tried to find them but could not, Yet it is repeated so often it must be true, Right?


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


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Interesting. So presumably, by the same logic, if Labour ran candidates in Northern Ireland, they’d clean up among the nationalist community?
    I think it’s far more likely that the SNP’s large return at the last assembly election was due in no small part to public discontent with Labour and the Lib Dems. If you think the majority of Scots are content to hand their futures over to Alex Salmond, you are seriously deluded. Besides, I have yet to meet a Scottish person who would not quite happily refer to themselves as both British and Scottish – this rather warped view of Scotland that Irish people seem to have never fails to amuse.

    +1 , for the most part , the only scotts who are big on independance are those of irish ancestry , they will never be a majority


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement