As the Scottish Independence debate rages on...

Belfast_Hibby

....Alex Salmond states that a minority vote may take Scotland out of the union.

Link here.

This is the concerning bit:

"The real question is which parts of Scotland might become independent. I guess that some parts would opt to remain within the UK. Like the referendum which established the Scottish Parliament we would surely see large differences in views across various regions of Scotland. Would Edinburgh and the south-east opt to stay in the UK while Glasgow would want to be independent, for instance?"

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?


(Oh, and predictably enough, the Unionists have started to sh!t themselves.)

LordSutch

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

Belfast_Hibby

ArthurF wrote: »

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?

daithicarr

i hope they dont try for independance before a clear and solid majority want it and i hope they dont try to brake it up like they did to ireland. that could be disasterous.

duggie-89

ArthurF wrote: »

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.

gordon_gekko

the problem with scotland and the issue of independance is there isnt much middle ground , those that support the union in scotland are more pro british than there counterparts in england , they are afterall cousins of the unionists in northern ireland , on the other hand those that want scottish independance are fiercly nationalistic

scottish people by there nature are not very compromising so its unlikely this will be sorted out any time soon

gurramok

Speaking of parts being 'swapped', didn't Berwick recently vote to join Scotland?

It would be a mess if parts of Scotland were left behind if they became independent, don't think i agree with Salmond, it's the wrong strategy unless he thinks leaving them out will strengthen the pro indo vote elsewhere.

Northern Ireland would be the biggest loser out of the breakup of the union, all those public sector jobs will be shed leading to alot of unemployment for starters possibly mirrorly the basket case that was the republic for a few decades as they don't have much industry anymore.

It ain't fair that the English taxpayer is subsidising Northern Ireland at the moment hence the English would welcome a break up i believe.

LordSutch

So far so good, but let me come back to several points that might complicate further the hypothetical 'break-up' of the Union.

The Monarchy is by its very Historic nature 'Scottish & English' to its core, with 'for example' (Princess Ann recently at Croak Park for the Scotland V Ireland Rugby match), then you have the Queen handing out Maundy Money in Armagh to her Loyal Ulster-Scots subjects, Prince Charles popping up at all kinds of events in the "Principality" of Wales, hence it not being a proper 'Country' in its own right, or being able to 'break-away'!

If Scotland does decide to leave the Union in the coming years (A Big If), I would be very curious to see what Northern Ireland does, considering its massive Scottish connections (more so than any English cultural connections) but thats yet another (Big If) ?

I cannot see a United Ireland at any stage in the future (With a Dublin Parliament running the North) :cool: surely a new Scottish-Ulster Union might be nearer to reality, but anyway, its all if's, but's & maybe's .......

North Sea oil is running low, and apart from that, what does Scotland have in the way of a 'Major' economic resources? Ship Building has gone, the Linen Mills have long since gone out of business in Scotland & the North, and the local 'IT sector' has been well & truly sown-up in the Republic!

So how would putting up a border with the rest of the UK help the Scots?

England will always thrive if it unloades Scotland & Northern Ireland, and thats for sure, seeing as more than two thirds of the UK population live in England & Wales & nearly all the major industry is generated down south!

Finally, what about further repercussions generated throughout Europe & beyond? would it be the 'Green light' for the Basque Country to break away? would it spell the 'Break-up' of Italy (always on the edge of) and would a 'hypothetical' break-up of the Union affect the Republic?

guinnessdrinker

ArthurF wrote: »

Finally, what about further repercussions generated throughout Europe & beyond? would it be the 'Green light' for the Basque Country to break away? would it spell the 'Break-up' of Italy (always on the edge of) and would a 'hypothetical' break-up of the Union affect the Republic?

Some good points raised in the thread so far. But just on this last one Arthur. It's my understanding that if the Scots vote for independance they can become a republic. However, the Basque Country is different in that even if every citizen living there voted to break away from Spain and France they could still not declare a republic.

As for the break up of Italy, I don't think it will ever happen. A break up of more volitile country like Spain is more likely. (That is if the Basque country did indeed become independant for a start, followed by some other regions). But highly unlikely.

An independant Scotland is far more likely or believable than either the Spanish or Italian scenarios imo.

dlofnep

Good for Scotland. The union is outdated.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hopefully the Scottish people will see sense although too many in the West of Scotland vote on family lines ie 'Generations of my family have always voted Labour therefore I must vote for them too even though I disagree with a lot of what they put in practice and their candidate is an idiot'.

Labour are the biggest Unionist party in Scotland

Victor

ArthurF wrote: »

North Sea oil is running low

Ah, by the Scots would have a near monopoly on Altlantic oil - at higher prices.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Labour are the biggest Unionist party in Scotland

Indeed, they can get a majority in Westminster. Getting majorities in the 4 countries is another matter.

duggie-89

ArthurF wrote: »

The Monarchy is by its very Historic nature 'Scottish & English' to its core, with 'for example' (Princess Ann recently at Croak Park for the Scotland V Ireland Rugby match), then you have the Queen handing out Maundy Money in Armagh to her Loyal Ulster-Scots subjects, Prince Charles popping up at all kinds of events in the "Principality" of Wales, hence it not being a proper 'Country' in its own right, or being able to 'break-away'!

I cannot see a United Ireland at any stage in the future (With a Dublin Parliament running the North) :cool: surely a new Scottish-Ulster Union might be nearer to reality, but anyway, its all if's, but's & maybe's .......

North Sea oil is running low, and apart from that, what does Scotland have in the way of a 'Major' economic resources? Ship Building has gone, the Linen Mills have long since gone out of business in Scotland & the North, and the local 'IT sector' has been well & truly sown-up in the Republic!

Finally, what about further repercussions generated throughout Europe & beyond? would it be the 'Green light' for the Basque Country to break away? would it spell the 'Break-up' of Italy (always on the edge of) and would a 'hypothetical' break-up of the Union affect the Republic?

ok can i ask what do you think would be the siturition of NI if scotland broke away from the union??? positive and neagitive??? do you think unionism will becomer stronger or weaker for that point.

well from my knowledge of the monarchy it is english with links to scotland, as it simply took over the kingdom of scotland much like what vicotria done in india, merly assumed the title.

also the queens visit cannot be seen to be a loyal visit. it was the first time such a visit occured. and i mind hearing one radio interview and it was about some old lady saying "its good to see her majesty doesn't forget about the people on the newtownards road." or something to that effect. lets be serious see was only inspecting what was to her something like conolies.

also the idea with a union of ulster-scotland being more realistic than a UI is well maybe hopefully thinking on your part. as the whole ulster scots thing has only really emerged recently while the idea and prospect of a UI has been around for a while.

but moving on its neither the time or place for that disscussion based on IF's.

but i think scotland could become a huge player in the renewable energy market, if it plays its card's right.

Mucco

ArthurF wrote: »

Finally, what about further repercussions generated throughout Europe & beyond? would it be the 'Green light' for the Basque Country to break away? would it spell the 'Break-up' of Italy (always on the edge of) and would a 'hypothetical' break-up of the Union affect the Republic?

It's the EU that allows the Scots to contemplate the idea of independence. I can't really imagine a Scotland outside of any union. You're right to point out these other potential breakaway states - there is a precedent now with Kosovo. I'm not sure how it affects Ireland; Westminster has already announced they have no self interest in keeping the north within the UK.

M

duggie-89

ArthurF wrote: »

The Monarchy is by its very Historic nature 'Scottish & English' to its core, with 'for example' (Princess Ann recently at Croak Park for the Scotland V Ireland Rugby match), then you have the Queen handing out Maundy Money in Armagh to her Loyal Ulster-Scots subjects, Prince Charles popping up at all kinds of events in the "Principality" of Wales, hence it not being a proper 'Country' in its own right, or being able to 'break-away'!

I cannot see a United Ireland at any stage in the future (With a Dublin Parliament running the North) :cool: surely a new Scottish-Ulster Union might be nearer to reality, but anyway, its all if's, but's & maybe's .......

North Sea oil is running low, and apart from that, what does Scotland have in the way of a 'Major' economic resources? Ship Building has gone, the Linen Mills have long since gone out of business in Scotland & the North, and the local 'IT sector' has been well & truly sown-up in the Republic!

Finally, what about further repercussions generated throughout Europe & beyond? would it be the 'Green light' for the Basque Country to break away? would it spell the 'Break-up' of Italy (always on the edge of) and would a 'hypothetical' break-up of the Union affect the Republic?

ok can i ask what do you think would be the siturition of NI if scotland broke away from the union??? positive and neagitive??? do you think unionism will becomer stronger or weaker for that point.

well from my knowledge of the monarchy it is english with links to scotland, as it simply took over the kingdom of scotland much like what vicotria done in india, merly assumed the title.

also the queens visit cannot be seen to be a loyal visit. it was the first time such a visit occured. and i mind hearing one radio interview and it was about some old lady saying "its good to see her majesty doesn't forget about the people on the newtownards road." or something to that effect. lets be serious see was only inspecting what was to her something like conolies.

also the idea with a union of ulster-scotland being more realistic than a UI is well maybe hopefully thinking on your part. as the whole ulster scots thing has only really emerged recently while the idea and prospect of a UI has been around for a while.

but moving on its neither the time or place for that disscussion based on IF's.

but i think scotland could become a huge player in the renewable energy market, if it plays its card's right.

i also think that if scotland was to go it would be a huge green light a mean lets be honest, if i was to make a list of ten countries that would gain independance in europe scotland wouldn't be in it until now. i mean you have the north, basque country, catilionia (barcelona), sciliy, parts of the balkans etc etc scotland would kind of come out of the blue and be like if they can do it so can we.

LordSutch

duggie-89 wrote: »

ok can i ask what do you think would be the siturition of NI if scotland broke away from the union??? positive and neagitive??? do you think unionism will becomer stronger or weaker for that point.

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? . . . . . .

duggie-89 wrote: »

well from my knowledge of the monarchy it is english with links to scotland, as it simply took over the kingdom of scotland much like what vicotria done in india, merly assumed the title.

The Scottish connections run very very deep within the Royal family!

duggie-89 wrote: »

also the queens visit cannot be seen to be a loyal visit. it was the first time such a visit occured. and i mind hearing one radio interview and it was about some old lady saying "its good to see her majesty doesn't forget about the people on the newtownards road." or something to that effect. lets be serious see was only inspecting what was to her something like conolies.

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:

duggie-89 wrote: »

also the idea with a union of ulster-scotland being more realistic than a UI is well maybe hopefully thinking on your part. as the whole ulster scots thing has only really emerged recently while the idea and prospect of a UI has been around for a while.

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.

duggie-89

ArthurF wrote: »

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.

ArthurF wrote: »

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.

ArturF wrote: »

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??

lostexpectation

i often why referendums don't have more questions more options, but perhaps there a point, is getting over 50% of the voters the be all and end all, wasn't labour elected on less that once as well as bush perhaps.

wow transferable referendum choices! how about that for the treaty

LordSutch

duggie-89 wrote: »

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.

Arent you forgetting Devolution?

duggie-89 wrote: »

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.

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:

duggie-89 wrote: »

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??

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).

EamonnKeane

duggie-89 wrote: »

well from my knowledge of the monarchy it is english with links to scotland, as it simply took over the kingdom of scotland much like what vicotria done in india, merly assumed the title.

No, James IV of Scotland married Henry VIII's sister Margaret; so when Elizabeth I died childless, King James VI of Scotland became King of England and Ireland also.

sceptre

gurramok wrote: »

Speaking of parts being 'swapped', didn't Berwick recently vote to join Scotland?

No, an SNP Scottish MP called for it to be part of Scotland and 60% of respondents to an ITV poll said it should be. It's 'formally' been part of England since 1978 and effectively since 1500ish (in between those dates it was sort of neither fish nor fowl)

duggie-89

EamonnKeane wrote: »

No, James IV of Scotland married Henry VIII's sister Margaret; so when Elizabeth I died childless, King James VI of Scotland became King of England and Ireland also.

then i stand corrected, but the truth really is that the true heir to the british crown is a republican. some bbc show traced the legimate heir to a man who just moved to austrila when he was young and voted for austrila to become a republic when a vote was called in 1998 i think.

duggie-89

ArthurF wrote: »

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.

LordSutch

duggie-89 wrote: »

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

duggie-89 wrote: »

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.

duggie-89 wrote: »

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.

duggie-89 wrote: »

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 . . . . ?

duggie-89 wrote: »

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'.

duggie-89 wrote: »

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?

duggie-89 wrote: »

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 it

duggie-89 wrote: »

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.

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.

Camac Hibs

gordon_gekko wrote: »

the problem with scotland and the issue of independance is there isnt much middle ground , those that support the union in scotland are more pro british than there counterparts in england , they are afterall cousins of the unionists in northern ireland , on the other hand those that want scottish independance are fiercly nationalistic

scottish people by there nature are not very compromising so its unlikely this will be sorted out any time soon

Not sure thats quite right.

Id say the vast majority of Scots who favour the continuation of the union consider themselves scottish foremost, british second. They just simply do not see how scotland would be better served as an independent nation. Of course there are a few old-school tories/orange headbangers who are into the whole queen and country stuff, but they are in the minority.

Then you have many people, such as myself, who strongly favour independence but are not at all fiercely nationalistic. Our reasons are that an independent scotland has a more left-leaning electorate than the UK as a whole, and there is therefore more likely to be a government with progressive social-democratic policies and principles in Holyrood than there is likely to be in Westminster.

dublinscot

Re the SNP and the monarchy - their position is to hold a referendum after achieving political independence.

There are both monarchists and republicans in the SNP, and tactically it doesn't make sense to adopt a position on the issue until after independence.

ArthurF wrote: »

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.

Norway, Ireland, Iceland.... all northern european, all much wealthier, all smaller.

Some pretty green grass you have to admit.

LordSutch

dublinscot wrote: »

Norway, Ireland, Iceland.... all northern european, all much wealthier, all smaller.

Some pretty green grass you have to admit.

But maybe not as green as you portray dublinscot, and what does all Much Wealthier mean anyway?

When the Republic left the UK, it took 70 odd years of being a back water & an economic 'basket case' before it became wealthier than the UK in 'Per Capita terms only', which does not actually make the Republic of Ireland any wealthier than the UK for the man in the street (looking for a public swimming pool) for example, or not paying VRT on his New Car for another example, or not having a free opp on the NHS for yet another example, etc, etc, etc . . . . . .

The grass is never quite that green on the other side (or outside the Union).

dublinscot

ArthurF wrote: »

But maybe not as green as you portray dublinscot, and what does all Much Wealthier mean anyway?

Healthier/wealthier on just about any socio-economic indicator or human development league table you care to mention.

When the Republic left the UK, it took 70 odd years of being a back water & an economic 'basket case' before it became wealthier than the UK in 'Per Capita terms only', which does not actually make the Republic of Ireland any wealthier than the UK for the man in the street (looking for a public swimming pool) for example, or not paying VRT on his New Car for another example, or not having a free opp on the NHS for yet another example, etc, etc, etc . . . . . .

The Irish Republic developed differently than the UK of course, but with respect Arthur this is 2008, not 1922.

I'm not sure how your point is relevant to a future independent Scotland.

The grass is never quite that green on the other side (or outside the Union).

If social democratic policies of the immensely popular SNP government are a taste of what's to come with full independence, then i think most Scots would agree that the other side of the fence does indeed look pretty green.

As Camac Hibs has pointed out, Scotland and England are distinct nations with differing political values. This will become all the more apparent when the Tories take office in Westminster.

Our nations are growing apart, and the Union will eventually come to an end. I realise this makes Unionists in Ireland very uncomfortable, but it's a reality they're going to have to deal with.

Kaiser_Sma

Aside from an economic argument i can't see the benefit of a seperate scottish nation. As it is now (and as it was mentioned previously) scots are over represented in westminister anyway, limiting scottish people to a scottish parliment will only be decreaseing their influence on the world stage. I find it hard to believe that modern scottish people will really look forward to a greater degree of uncertainty and much reduced freedoms of movement and relations with england and the rest of the union.

Regionalisation and devolved parliments are very helpfull to govern or organize diverse or more distant regions effectivly. Any greater degree of seperation is unecisary and a selfish flight of fancy from traditionalists, xenophobes and bored nationalists with dilusions or distant memories of oppression, gross favoritism or mutual hereditary hatred.

Camac Hibs

Aside from an economic argument i can't see the benefit of a seperate scottish nation. As it is now (and as it was mentioned previously) scots are over represented in westminister anyway, limiting scottish people to a scottish parliment will only be decreaseing their influence on the world stage.

If this influence on the world stage is blindly following the american lead on foreign policy and engaging in illegal and ill-though out wars on false premises, then that is something most of us can live with.

I find it hard to believe that modern scottish people will really look forward to a greater degree of uncertainty and much reduced freedoms of movement and relations with england and the rest of the union.

That is simply nonsense. What exactly would this "much reduced freedom of movement" entail? Border controls ? There are very minimal restrictions on freedom of movement between EU states, indeed im struggling to think of any.

Any greater degree of seperation is unecisary and a selfish flight of fancy from traditionalists, xenophobes and bored nationalists with dilusions or distant memories of oppression, gross favoritism or mutual hereditary hatred

.

I think you grossly misunderstand the reasons why scots may favour independence. There is always going to be a few braveheart-drunk idiots such as you mention, but they tend not to be the politically active types. THey are certainly not prominent in the SNP. I think these fools would wither away in an independent scotland, as they would no longer have any basis on which they could feed their pathetic sense of victimhood.

A greater degree of seperation is necessary if there is a signifigant distance between the poltical agendas of the two parliaments - which there is at the moment and which there most certainly will be if the tories win the next westminster elections.

dublinscot

Kaiser_Sma wrote: »

Any greater degree of seperation is unecisary and a selfish flight of fancy from traditionalists, xenophobes and bored nationalists with dilusions or distant memories of oppression, gross favoritism or mutual hereditary hatred.

These type of fundamentalists exist in Scotland as they do in every country, but they are not what drives the SNP (or the Socialists and Greens who also support independence).

Talking of which, compare these two quotes...

"This country is a blessed country. The British are special. The world knows it, we know it, this is the greatest country on earth." Tony Blair

"There is British nationalism or Scottish nationalism. I prefer the civic nationalism of small nations that has been expressed through the independence of a dozen European nations of similar size to Scotland in the past 100 years. They have prospered and I'd choose the tolerance and peace of Norway and Ireland over Trident and the illegal Iraq war any day" Alex Salmond.

Exactly who are the rabid nationalists in this debate?

Fratton Fred

dublinscot wrote: »

These type of fundamentalists exist in Scotland as they do in every country, but they are not what drives the SNP (or the Socialists and Greens who also support independence).

Talking of which, compare these two quotes...

"This country is a blessed country. The British are special. The world knows it, we know it, this is the greatest country on earth." Tony Blair

"There is British nationalism or Scottish nationalism. I prefer the civic nationalism of small nations that has been expressed through the independence of a dozen European nations of similar size to Scotland in the past 100 years. They have prospered and I'd choose the tolerance and peace of Norway and Ireland over Trident and the illegal Iraq war any day" Alex Salmond.

Exactly who are the rabid nationalists in this debate?

hardly a fair comparison though, both quotes were made for completely differring reasons and by men with different agendas.

Life is very easy for Alex Salmond at the moment, it will be interesting to see how he stands up if he ever gets the opportunity to act on a world stage rather than just a Scottish one.

I have no doubt it will happen, I just think it will take longer than people think.

dublinscot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

hardly a fair comparison though, both quotes were made for completely differring reasons and by men with different agendas.

My point is still valid. Could you imagine Salmond talking about Scotland in the way Blair talked about Britain? It simply wouldn't happen.

Scottish nationalists only talk of equality with other nations, not superiority.

I have no doubt it will happen, I just think it will take longer than people think.

I give the Union another 15 years tops.

daithicarr

scotlands independance would increase its voice, not decrease it. it would no longer be a region of Great britain but its own political entity in the UN, EU, etc, which would represent the voice of scotish people.

as for economics, being a small nation doesnt seem to have any detremental effects, many of the richest nations in europe are smaller ones. luxembourg, norway, Ireland.

turgon

Ive an innovative to the Irish solution to the Northern Irish Question post Scottish independence - a union between Ireland, Scotland and Northern Ireland! Then we could rake up wales brittiny, cornwall and the isle of mann and establish the United Celtic Republics.

LordSutch

daithicarr wrote: »

scotlands independance would increase its voice, not decrease it. it would no longer be a region of Great britain but its own political entity in the UN, EU, etc, which would represent the voice of scotish people.

Scotland will always be a region of Great Britain, irrespective of wheather it becomes an independent country or not ...................

turgon

Yeah geographically, not politically. There not planning to split the island in two with a big canal, just split it into two soviergn states

LordSutch

Probably much the same as we split this island into two sovereign states.

djpbarry

turgon wrote: »

Ive an innovative to the Irish solution to the Northern Irish Question post Scottish independence - a union between Ireland, Scotland and Northern Ireland! Then we could rake up wales brittiny, cornwall and the isle of mann and establish the United Celtic Republics.

Right...

Let's not.

turgon

Yeah but if this happens your not going to see some backward bogger organization like the IRA running errand around the scottish border.

Fratton Fred

dublinscot wrote: »

My point is still valid. Could you imagine Salmond talking about Scotland in the way Blair talked about Britain? It simply wouldn't happen.

Scottish nationalists only talk of equality with other nations, not superiority.


I give the Union another 15 years tops.

I'm not sure it is valid. Tony Blair was premier of a G8 country and a UN security council member and therefore speaks on a much larger stage than Alex Salmond is likely to. Blair's speach was about British unity, Salmond's is ab the opposite, he does not want British unity.

Maskhadov

time for them to shut scotland down and move everyone down south of hadrians wall. it wasnt built for no reason. Scotish independence is a joke.

dublinscot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure it is valid. Tony Blair was premier of a G8 country and a UN security council member and therefore speaks on a much larger stage than Alex Salmond is likely to.

I don't really see how the size of the stage is relevant?

The fact remains that Scottish nationalists don't speak in the same traditionally 'nationalist' tones.

Blair's speach was about British unity, Salmond's is ab the opposite, he does not want British unity.

You're right, he wants British equality.

Fratton Fred

dublinscot wrote: »

I don't really see how the size of the stage is relevant?

The fact remains that Scottish nationalists don't speak in the same traditionally 'nationalist' tones.


You're right, he wants British equality.

The stage is important, Blair was speaking as British PM to the entire nation, Salmond is only interested in convincing less than 20% of those people to support him. The reason they don't speak in traditionally nationalist tones is because traditional nationalism is a thing of the past.

me too, it's about time England had an equal say to the over represented Scots

Camac Hibs

me too, it's about time England had an equal say to the over represented Scots

Too right, so lets end this outdated union once and for all as it isnt suiting anyone.

dublinscot

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The stage is important, Blair was speaking as British PM to the entire nation,

And Salmond was speaking to the entire Scottish nation.

Salmond is only interested in convincing less than 20% of those people to support him.

Yeah, he's only interested in the Scottish voters (about 9% btw).

I still don't see how this is relevant though.

The reason they don't speak in traditionally nationalist tones is because traditional nationalism is a thing of the past.

So what's Blair's excuse?

CptSternn

While on the topic, this great article appeared just the other day in the LA Times...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-connery5apr05,0,5160222.story

The Scots show their true colors

Sean Connery says that Scotland's independence day may be closer than ever.
By Sean Connery
April 5, 2008
There are few more cherished American ideals than independence. As we prepare to celebrate Tartan Day, established as April 6 by a U.S. Senate resolution in 1998 to commemorate one of the inspirations for the Declaration of Independence -- Scotland's Declaration of Arbroath -- it is as good a time as any to tell the uniquely Scottish story of independence.

In 1320, Scots penned the Declaration of Arbroath. In lines that would echo through the ages, they wrote, "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honors that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

Many Americans are familiar with that part of the story -- of the patriot William Wallace and the Scots who stood up for independence. What is understandably less familiar is that in 1707, a group of Scottish noblemen sold Scotland's independence and joined with England to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

It wasn't a popular move. In fact, Daniel Defoe wrote that "for every Scot in favor, 99 is against."

So it is not surprising that some people have been working ever since to change it.

More interesting than the past, though, is the national conversation going on in Scotland now. What is so special about it is that the world has an example of a completely democratic process in which the people are considering their future, and in which their voice will be the final word.

In 1997, Scots spoke loudly when they voted to reinstate their Parliament. When Scottish National Party President Winifred Ewing was able to say, "The Scots Parliament, adjourned on 25th March 1707, is hereby reconvened," she touched hearts across the country.

The Scottish Parliament has authority for health, education, courts and the environment. The British Parliament retains control over most taxes and foreign affairs.

The question now is, what next? The current Scottish government is the first one in modern times that wants to see Scotland reclaim its independence.

The best part of this debate is that it is based on ideas, not ethnicity. Conversations about the best future for the country are happening in the Scottish Parliament and in homes and workplaces across the country.

The Scottish government wants Scotland and England to become independent and equal nations, with the queen and her successors continuing as the common head of state of both -- similar to what happened in Canada and Australia in the 20th century. In other words, we would move toward becoming united kingdoms, rather than the United Kingdom.

Debating their constitutional future does not stop Scots from contributing to today's important international issues. This week, the Scottish government, with the support of the National Geographic Society, announced the Saltire Prize -- a $20-million award for innovation in renewable energy -- as a challenge to the world's scientists. The message that Scotland is open for business came across clearly this week as Scotland dropped its business taxes to be even more internationally competitive. And you might not think Scotland when you think football, but today, the New York Giants' own Greenock-born Lawrence Tynes will be leading the Tartan Day parade down 6th Avenue.

Independence is something Americans inherently understand. My whole adult life, I have waited and worked for the day that Scots are able to decide democratically if they wish to rejoin the community of nations as an independent and equal member. A recent poll showed that two-thirds of Scots would welcome that opportunity under certain circumstances.

I believe that day -- Scotland's independence day -- is closer than ever.

Camac Hibs

Im pleasantly surprised at how good an article that is.

However, I hope that when Scotland becomes independent Connery returns and contributes his fair share to the greater good of the nation.