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
Scottish Independence
Options
Comments
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »So they should have had a referendum on it. I'll make sure the ECHR is informed.
For you to claimThere is absolutely nothing the English have done that wasn't with the support of the Scots.
and that claim be true, yes indeed they should have. But of course they did not.0 -
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 accuracy0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »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 !0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »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.0 -
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.0 -
......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.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »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.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »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?0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote: »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.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »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.0 -
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.0 -
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...0
-
LondonIrish90 wrote: »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.0 -
LondonIrish90 wrote: »Please (.........)just me.
.
The post, not the poster.LondonIrish90 wrote: »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.0 -
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?0 -
LondonIrish90 wrote: »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?0 -
LondonIrish90 wrote: »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 ireland0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
LondonIrish90 wrote: »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.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »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.Fratton Fred wrote: »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.Fratton Fred wrote: », 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.Fratton Fred wrote: »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'?Fratton Fred wrote: »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?
0 -
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.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.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.And yet - they continue to vote for that same political party in a majority to govern their country? No faith in the SNP aye?
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?0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »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.Fratton Fred wrote: »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.Fratton Fred wrote: »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.Fratton Fred wrote: »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.Fratton Fred wrote: »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).0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »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.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »................
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.Fratton Fred wrote: »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.Fratton Fred wrote: »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?0 -
LondonIrish90 wrote: »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.LondonIrish90 wrote: », 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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement