Scottish Independence

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.