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
As the Scottish Independence debate rages on...
Options
-
28-03-2008 3:00pm#1
Comments
-
Belfast_Hibby wrote: »This is the concerning bit: Hmm. I can't possibly think of where that could go wrong. I mean, last time they settled an independence dilemma by retaining one part within the British Union and leaving the other to do as it pleased, it all went well, didn't it?
Would be interested to hear posters' thoughts on this. I'm all for Scottish independence, as it would be a massive step forward to the complete break-up of the entire union. However, is this really the way to go? Would it not just cause civil unrest and general celtic fighting?
Why would you want a complete break-up of the Union anyway?
From a Unionist perspective the further 'Break-Up' of the Union would be crazy, short sighted, narrow minded & "possibly" dangerous ............
I can however see the benefits of a completly seperate Scotland in a New relationship with a New England~ Wales~ N.Ireland coalition should the New independent Scotland prosper? . . . . . . . but please remember that the Republic was an economic 'Basket case' after leaving the Union (for 70 odd years) before its relatively New Found wealth & prosperety!
The questions are as vast as they are complicated if Scotland is to leave the Union, which is still a "Big If"
Where would Northern Ireland fit-in to the New dispensation? How would relations between Scotland & England be (with a New Border)? in other words 'The mind Boggles'.
With the dissolution of the United Kingdom, wouldnt the UK cease to exist as a G8 country (for example)? wouldnt the balance of Power in Europe also shift? No more Great Britain (in an island context) Sooo many questions ...................
0 -
Why would you want a complete break-up of the Union anyway?
From a Unionist perspective the further 'Break-Up' of the Union would be crazy, short sighted, narrow minded & "possibly" dangerous ............
I can however see the benefits of a completly seperate Scotland in a New relationship with a New England~ Wales~ N.Ireland coalition should the New independent Scotland prosper? . . . . . . . but please remember that the Republic was an economic 'Basket case' after leaving the Union (for 70 odd years) before its relatively New Found wealth & prosperety!
The questions are as vast as they are complicated if Scotland is to leave the Union, which is still a "Big If"
Where would Northern Ireland fit-in to the New dispensation? How would relations between Scotland & England be (with a New Border)? in other words 'The mind Boggles'.
With the dissolution of the United Kingdom, wouldnt the UK cease to exist as a G8 country (for example)? wouldnt the balance of Power in Europe also shift? No more Great Britain (in an island context) Sooo many questions ...................
Good points Arthur, I'll try and respond to all of them!
I would like to see a break-up of the Union as I don't believe it serves any purpose to the countries involved any more. That includes England! The majority of English people that I have spoken to regarding this see Scotland and Northern Ireland as a drain on the Westminster economy, and would gladly see the end of it all. Not being all that interested in how the English economy would fare as an independent state I only have that to go on, but if they wanted to retain their monarchy and so on that would, of course, be up to them. It would probably serve them well as a tourist attraction and so no.
Wales and Scotland both have ample resources to prosper as independent states within the EU. They both have enough cultural heritage to attract tourism (Scotland more than Wales, granted), and Scotland especially has the benefit of the North Sea oil, and resources for sustainable energy in the future.
Regards to the relationship between Scotland and England, in my opinion it would improve. The English would no longer feel like the "northern Brits" were sponging off them and creaming their economy, and the Scots would lose the feeling of oppression by the Sassenachs.
Northern Ireland...well, that's a point of conflict. It would remain to be seen that if and when Scotland leaves the Union, and the Union breaks up, whether a 32-county Ireland would be established, or whether NI would become an independent state, with Belfast as it's capital, instead of Dublin or London.
You're right, there would be no more Great Britain. That would generally be where I would like to see the motion go to, of course you're a Unionist and that's fair enough, and you won't agree with the points I've just made. What are your reasons for wanting to retain the Union?0 -
-
Why would you want a complete break-up of the Union anyway?
From a Unionist perspective the further 'Break-Up' of the Union would be crazy, short sighted, narrow minded & "possibly" dangerous ............
I can however see the benefits of a completly seperate Scotland in a New relationship with a New England~ Wales~ N.Ireland coalition should the New independent Scotland prosper? . . . . . . . but please remember that the Republic was an economic 'Basket case' after leaving the Union (for 70 odd years) before its relatively New Found wealth & prosperety!
The questions are as vast as they are complicated if Scotland is to leave the Union, which is still a "Big If"
Where would Northern Ireland fit-in to the New dispensation? How would relations between Scotland & England be (with a New Border)? in other words 'The mind Boggles'.
With the dissolution of the United Kingdom, wouldnt the UK cease to exist as a G8 country (for example)? wouldnt the balance of Power in Europe also shift? No more Great Britain (in an island context) Sooo many questions ...................
some good points which made me think alot but i think i have some answers from a republican background.
well ok nearly everything that belfast_hibby says i would agree with so i will try and not say the same thing.
i think that the union doesn't even serve the english or irish/northern irish or scots or welsh. it was designed for a different world than today.
i am not sure about wales but scotland could def look after itself. i think not ony with north sea oil but also the great natural resources it has for tidal and wind powered renewable energy it could def be a leading souce of energy in the future.
well the south was a basket case for so long because the majority of industry was in the north and so they had very little industry in the south to build from. i also read somewhere in a book that mentioned the depression as another reason for limited growth it hit hard everywhere, and stunted growth. i think the north may have been less affected because of the union connections.
and there are alot of what if's and what will happen options. i also think the cause of unionism in the north will suffer aswell because of the ulster scots connection, as the scots part of that "culture" would have left the union so the hertige will be linked to a country that isn't in the union much like the irish culture which has strong links with a country not in the union.
i also think that the standing of the (remaining) UK would go as the view of it being a grand super player in the world slids from view. also i think if the union went a slide towards the EU would take place as ppl who were pro union might want to take some assurance of being part of a bigger union.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
The point about the 'North' is that they are culturally much closer to Scotland & England than they are to the Republic, which is strongly reflected in their identity, accents, culture & surname origins (mostly from Scotland & Northern England). I think that there will always be a Strong sence of 'Union' & Unionism within the North, and why not? . . . . . .
well i dont know if i would say that, i still think that culturaly alot of links are with the south, eg the GAA and the all-ireland rugby team. yes there are some vibrant links with scotland but i think there more of ah my gret great great uncle/aunt/grandad/granny is from scotland. that is not saying that thats the only connection, i think in everyday life there are alot of conections between the two ie the whole old firm connection.
i agree but will than sense of unionism be positive or negative, my experinces are that it can be quite negaivte and hositle in nature.
i think a key question is what way will unionism develop in the future if Scotland gains independance.The Queen has been to Northern Ireland many many times over the decades, this was also the first time that she distributed the symbolic 'Maundy Money' outside of England & Wales. The Unionist people are arguably the strongest supporters of the Monarchy anywhere within the UK ~ ironically, Alex Salmond is also a very keen Monarchist too :eek:
really i never knew that, o
alex salmond my opinion of you has suffered a dint lol yea that is prob true they are the strongest supporters because they are the ones most likely for some time to form another country. ie they needed a figure head to "cling" onto.As a Unionist myself I cant see any reason to break ties with England, Scotland & Wales, because as far as Unionists are concerned the peoples of the british isles (Irish, Scots, English, Welsh, etc) are all one big "loosely connected family" on the edge of Europe, and this is where we have always differed with the 'Irish Republican ideal' that Ireland North & South should not be connected or seen to be connected in any way with the wider british family, whereas (from a Unionist perspective the ties run deep & the Union should not be broken).
Good luck to Scotland if they wish to break away, but I am still not convinced that the grass will be any greener outside of the Union.
i agree we have many simularities but the idea and principle of being RULED over by just one of thoses peoples is just one of the key reasons why republicans are opposed to the union. the union in your view is one fair system of everyone being cherished and we all know that isn't the case in the past. the people who have the most say in the union are the english who are mainly based around south east england and so what do they care for there cousins in scotland and ireland and walse to a lesser extent.
the union doesn't take into account the nation interest of the people ie the scot's, welsh, irish, english. so where is self determination??? we will always have to do what the bigger groups of people want ie england and wales.
i think a possible solution would be to have a 32 county republic that is involved in a kind of council of the isles event which would see where ireland and the uk (being other countries such as scotland as well) can work together in terms of economy and mutual benifit, but it will also allow for the other countries saying no and being able to go their own way and achievie their own demands by their own people, instead of having to follow the line from britian.
i am pretty sure that you would admit that britian and its previous governments have done nothing for unionism in the north. so can i ask why support something that hasn't your best intrests at heart??0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Arent you forgetting Devolution?
Anything is possible if people have an agreed viewpoint, but try telling the North that they should be part of a 32 County republic :rolleyes:
I support the Union & the peoples concept of 'Britishness' because I see no reason to 'pretend' that we (Irish, Scots, English & Welsh) are soooo different that we cant be loosely connected as in the United Kingdom of great Britain & Northern Ireland.
(obviously with devolved Parliaments governing the four regions of the UK).
you didn't seem to take on board any of the points i made. devolution how i am i forgetting devolution, i am making the point that devolution isn't enough in my opinion. because firstly devolution only gives very limited powers to the assemblies ie the north and wales. also the only other parilament ie scotland hasn't the same powers as westminister. also what about england??? they haven't got a devolued gov. o wait thats silly of me they dont care about devolution as much because at the end of the day they have the say in westminister which has total control.
so the end result remains the same the smaller regions whit their people (something you pointed out still haven't an equal say)
its like one distance cousin telling a group of 1st cousins what to do and being a really bossy sh1t about it. and this distant cousin (now can u guess who the distant cousin is???) is telling the others that at the end of the day they can decide roughly what volume they all want to hear a TV programme but they have no say in what TV programme there forced to watch.
well i have and will continue to do so. and i hope you dont think the idea of a UI is lost on the people of the north, its still a realistic option hta has a considerable amount of support. i mean even mountbatten saw the future in a 32 county repubic.
so would you agree to a federal type of system??? where each province/region has its own say and some tax laws but the centeral gov is in westminister?? can i then ask why only have a "northern Ireland" in this loosly connected union. why do you exclude the south (republic of ireland)??? there as irish as the people in the north.
we aren't so differnt but we are different and to pretend otherwise is simply dilissuion. and who would be incharge of this union??? ie who would be head of state.
i think i understand your reasons for maintaining the union but the union at the moment simply outdated and an old relica that should be passed into history as its original values for its est. was to bind together the regions of these isles for the benifit of MAINLY one people. times have changed and the imperal britian that set up the union has died a horrible death so why should we still live in the same cave as that imperalist monster???
why not have a modern respectful form of union ie something like an EU that has the best interest of each people and maintains their right to govern themselves. but works together on key issuses.
i know i have asked alot of questions but can you try and answer them in more depth so i can get a better understanding of where your coming from and what you think on the points i raised.0 -
you didn't seem to take on board any of the points i made. devolution how i am i forgetting devolution, i am making the point that devolution isn't enough in my opinion. because firstly devolution only gives very limited powers to the assemblies ie the north and wales.
Ergo, full powers & the break-up of the UK ...........................also the only other parilament ie scotland hasn't the same powers as westminister. also what about england??? they haven't got a devolued gov. o wait thats silly of me they dont care about devolution as much because at the end of the day they have the say in westminister which has total control.
Dont forget that the current Prime Minister is Scottish, and so too are a disproportionate number of ministers in the Big Three Westminster Parties! and as regards England getting its very own devolved Government dealing solely with 'English matters' (I think thats a Great idea) with Westminster then overseeing the New English parliament as well as the other three.its like one distance cousin telling a group of 1st cousins what to do and being a really bossy sh1t about it. and this distant cousin (now can u guess who the distant cousin is???) is telling the others that at the end of the day they can decide roughly what volume they all want to hear a TV programme but they have no say in what TV programme there forced to watch.
But everything in the UK is devolved & regionalised anyway (including TV) . . . so the Scots get their Health service, their Scottish Newspapers, whilst watching BBC Scotland, and the same goes for NI & Wales, all regionalised to 'Local Regions' and loosely connected & funded by Central Government in Westminster.well i have and will continue to do so. and i hope you dont think the idea of a UI is lost on the people of the north, its still a realistic option hta has a considerable amount of support. i mean even mountbatten saw the future in a 32 county repubic.
And thats all Great & Dandy, and If the people of the North actually want to leave the UK, good for them ~ but they dont currently wish to leave the Union, and if they did it wouldnt automatically mean a United Ireland, it might involve some kind of 'Independance' like the 'Isle of Man' for example, or a New Union with a New independent Scotland? Who knows . . . . ?so would you agree to a federal type of system??? where each province/region has its own say and some tax laws but the centeral gov is in westminister?? can i then ask why only have a "northern Ireland" in this loosly connected union. why do you exclude the south (republic of ireland)??? there as irish as the people in the north.
Obviously the South left the Union (1922 >) & the North stayed behind (for more reasons than we have time to cover in this thread), and as regards the federal Tax laws, why not? I dunno really, but like any regionalised Country there would have to be a Centralised Control, otherwise there would be no further need for the concept of the 'UK'.i think i understand your reasons for maintaining the union but the union at the moment simply outdated and an old relica that should be passed into history as its original values for its est. was to bind together the regions of these isles for the benifit of MAINLY one people. times have changed and the imperal britian that set up the union has died a horrible death so why should we still live in the same cave as that imperalist monster???
"The Mainly One people" you speak of being the Scots? or The South of England? both parts of the UK do very well out of the Union as far as I can see, with Northern England & Wales getting the smaller parts of the financial 'Cake' . . . thats my perception, but maybe I am wrong?why not have a modern respectful form of union ie something like an EU that has the best interest of each people and maintains their right to govern themselves. but works together on key issuses.
But thats whats already in place across the UK since Blair introduced Devolution, isnt iti know i have asked alot of questions but can you try and answer them in more depth so i can get a better understanding of where your coming from and what you think on the points i raised.
To summerise; I like the Union, and I like its ever changing concept, I like the connections between the four regions of the UK, the 'National identity' within 'Local' identities (Welsh & British) for example, but I can however, see the posability of the 'Union' becoming an ex-Union in the coming decades if the Scots vote to become totally independent :eek:
And if they do, then so be it ~ the sky wont fall in, & the English wont frett, but will the Scots really vote to break-away? I reckon not.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement