Scottish Independence

IRISHSPORTSGUY

To put it bluntly, can anyone see it happening?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Erin Go Brath

Yes

Of course Scotland can and should push for independence.
Scotland needs to stand up and be a nation and assert its national sovereignty.

The SNP won 2 seats in Europe, and are gaining ground in each election. The desire for independence is growing and I can see it happening over the next few years.

turgon

Note how supporters of the Yes side in debates like this (such as Irish unification) will rarely be able to give tangible physical reasons, only some high minded ideal, whereas No-siders will often be able to quote actual economic and social conditions.

It is the ultimate contrast of reason vs idealism. Unfortunately the latter has a habit of trying to forcibly suppress the former.

Erin Go Brath

turgon wrote: »

Note how supporters of the Yes side in debates like this (such as Irish unification) will rarely be able to give tangible physical reasons, only some high minded ideal, whereas No-siders will often be able to quote actual economic and social conditions.

It is the ultimate contrast of reason vs idealism. Unfortunately the latter has a habit of trying to forcibly suppress the former.

North Sea oil is pumping tens of billions into the UK treasury and equivalent billions are being spent on London projects such as Crossrail and the Olympics. Scotland would be better off going it alone. If that money was pumped into Scottish infrastructure and developing the economy there it would be far more beneficial to the people of Scotland. Scotland DOES NOT need to be part of the UK from whatever angle you want to look at it.

So enough of your reason v idealism bollix!

turgon

Oh yes, one oil area and you think it will solve all of Scotland woes? How about some references to buoy up that claim?

Cue reference to Norway.

mike65

Let them at it I say. Then rebuild Hadrians Wall.

El Stuntman

from speaking to Scottish people about this, the overwhelming impression I get is that they just don't care - they certainly don't have some victim mentality about their place in the Union.

the English care even less!

getz

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

North Sea oil is pumping tens of billions into the UK treasury and equivalent billions are being spent on London projects such as Crossrail and the Olympics. Scotland would be better off going it alone. If that money was pumped into Scottish infrastructure and developing the economy there it would be far more beneficial to the people of Scotland. Scotland DOES NOT need to be part of the UK from whatever angle you want to look at it.

So enough of your reason v idealism bollix!

home rule for england ?

Fr Tod Umptious

An independent Scotland would not exactly be good new for us here in The Republic of Ireland.

They could go on a corporation tax cutting spree, that combined with their superior infrastructure (a legacy from hundreds of years of English oppression), that could take away a lot of the foreign investment that comes into Ireland.

I personally don't see it happening, the Scots do not, as stated above, have the victim mentality about the Union that existed in Ireland and thus the people would see that they are better off in the Union than out.

El Stuntman

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

North Sea oil is pumping tens of billions into the UK treasury and equivalent billions are being spent on London projects such as Crossrail and the Olympics. Scotland would be better off going it alone. If that money was pumped into Scottish infrastructure and developing the economy there it would be far more beneficial to the people of Scotland. Scotland DOES NOT need to be part of the UK from whatever angle you want to look at it.

unless you go back 30 years in time, you'll find that your argument doesn't hold water at all - the UK North Sea oil field's depletion rates are alarming and they will be gone entirely by 2020. There is no big magic pot of oil money anymore.

move along please

Deedsie

Ya if Scotland became independent, they would probably join the euro, which would result in more tourism.

We are all european now so they degree of Independence has pretty much been reduced significantly.

There is obviously a degree of support for independence in Scotland, realistically Scots are never going to go out on there own completely. The British army would have to be completely over hauled.

I think eventually the union will break apart, but not because of the scots, the English southern counties will be sick of supporting a welfare state that they have propped up for the last thirty years. And they will encourage the Scots to a certain level of autonomy.

irish_bob

the desire for independance among the scotts is greatly exagerated in the media , after ulster , the most staunchly unionist britts of all live in scotland , much stronger than in england

Hookey

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

North Sea oil is pumping tens of billions into the UK treasury and equivalent billions are being spent on London projects such as Crossrail and the Olympics. Scotland would be better off going it alone. If that money was pumped into Scottish infrastructure and developing the economy there it would be far more beneficial to the people of Scotland. Scotland DOES NOT need to be part of the UK from whatever angle you want to look at it.

So enough of your reason v idealism bollix!

The Tax revenues from the South East of England pay for Scotland, not the other way around, and this has been the case for a long time. Scotland had a window for financial independence from England in the early 70s and they missed it. English calls for independence from Scotland (and the rest of the Union) is the real story; Labour can't afford to give up their Scottish power base but the Tories gave up on Scotland decades ago and would lose nothing by waving it bye-bye other than an historic commitment to the Union (and politicians are nothing if not pragmatic). The SNP may yet get what they want, but regret it quite quickly. Scotland will NOT become the new Norway (even Norway's not going to be the new Norway for much longer).

That would really test the geography of Celtic fans.

I mean, could they really keep playing that oppressed Oirish card if they were no longer under the tyranny of the Union Jack, would they have to face facts and at last accept they were in a completely different and now independant country etc. etc.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Deleted User wrote: »

That would really test the geography of Celtic fans.

I mean, could they really keep playing that oppressed Oirish card if they were no longer under the tyranny of the Union Jack, would they have to face facts and at last accept they were in a completely different and now independant country etc. etc.

I'm not a Celtic fan but I daresay Rangers supporters would take it worse? They essentially wouldn't have much to crow about anymore.

I wonder how Ulster Unionists would react, after all a lot are descended from Scottish Planters (by no means am I saying they would suddenly accept a reunified Ireland or summit).

Deedsie

Deleted User wrote: »

That would really test the geography of Celtic fans.

I mean, could they really keep playing that oppressed Oirish card if they were no longer under the tyranny of the Union Jack, would they have to face facts and at last accept they were in a completely different and now independant country etc. etc.

I really couldnt care less about soccer fans. Would it not be worse for the Rangers though.

I genuinely think the Scots would be better off on their own.

turgon

Deedsie wrote: »

I genuinely think the Scots would be better off on their own.

Why?

Deedsie

turgon wrote: »

Why?

Why not?

Scottish culture could flourish if left to itself and not be branded as part of the UK in relation to tourism. The Natural resources Scotland has puts it ahead of the rest of the UK. Edinburgh is the finest city in the UK. In my opinion.

Self determination should be the right of every race on this planet. The Catalans, Basques, Scots should be in the position to govern there patch.

If the Scottish dont want that let them vote that way and ill have no complaints, but it should be up to the Scots, nobody else. In my opinion, Scotland could be branded better on an international stage as a republic.

Fratton Fred

Hookey wrote: »

The Tax revenues from the South East of England pay for Scotland, not the other way around, and this has been the case for a long time. Scotland had a window for financial independence from England in the early 70s and they missed it. English calls for independence from Scotland (and the rest of the Union) is the real story; Labour can't afford to give up their Scottish power base but the Tories gave up on Scotland decades ago and would lose nothing by waving it bye-bye other than an historic commitment to the Union (and politicians are nothing if not pragmatic). The SNP may yet get what they want, but regret it quite quickly. Scotland will NOT become the new Norway (even Norway's not going to be the new Norway for much longer).

don't forget that Shell and BP both have their HQs in london, so they are paying tax in the south east for revenue that comes from Scotland. North sea oil is only a very small part of their income though.

As for Rangers fans, they are only pro union becuase Celtic fans aren't. the outstanding feeling I get from the Scots is how little they care about independance.

they'll get it one day I'm sure, but i see it being as part of a wider federal europe more than as a break away from england.

Hookey

Deedsie wrote: »

Why not?

Scottish culture could flourish if left to itself and not be branded as part of the UK in relation to tourism. The Natural resources Scotland has puts it ahead of the rest of the UK. Edinburgh is the finest city in the UK. In my opinion.

Self determination should be the right of every race on this planet. The Catalans, Basques, Scots should be in the position to govern there patch.

If the Scottish dont want that let them vote that way and ill have no complaints, but it should be up to the Scots, nobody else. In my opinion, Scotland could be branded better on an international stage as a republic.

"Scottish Culture" doesn't put food on the table (or not enough anyway). Scotland already markets itself separately from England for tourist purposes (and economic purposes too), so that's a pretty feeble reason for becoming independent. Natural resources? Not so much, the oil is running out, the gas fields are mostly off English waters (and running out as well), so there's a bit of HEP and that's your lot.

I don't even think a Scottish republic would be genuinely more "independent" than they currently are; they'd run off and join the Euro and be pretty much in the same situation they're in now; economic decisions at the mercy of an outside central bank.

Scotland already has a distinct cultural identity, a large measure of self-determination (more than your Catalan example for instance), and more influence over the UK parliament than it would ever have as a standalone state in the EU.

Idealism is all very well, but cutting off your nose to spite your face springs to mind in this case.

conchubhar1

there is no direct need for it - nowadays
like northern ireland (minus acht na gaeilge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

but that does not mean it should not happen and that it will not happen - people are not being oppressed and most people dont mind it

turgon

Deedsie wrote: »

Why not?

That is a poor form of argument.

Deedsie wrote: »

Scottish culture could flourish if left to itself and not be branded as part of the UK in relation to tourism.

Because the English are suppressing them? Scotland have their own parliament and a tourist board. Let me Google that for you.

Deedsie wrote: »

The Natural resources Scotland has puts it ahead of the rest of the UK.

That has already been addressed, and unless you can prove that then one has to assume their are no resources substantial enough to run a country of 5 million people.

Deedsie wrote: »

Self determination should be the right of every race on this planet. The Catalans, Basques, Scots should be in the position to govern there patch.

In principle I would agree. But should Corkonians be allowed self-determination? Who gets to decide what constitutes a race? Or lets go for a safe one - should every traveler shanty down be an independent nation?

conchubhar1

sorry turgon
''why?'' is also a poor form of counter argument


what decides a race? - let me google that for you?

scotland has its own language, culture etc etc etc

does that not quantify the want for a country?

notice i didnt say need - as i stated above the need for one as soon as possible is not strong - as they arent being suppresses now
but in the future should they want a seperate state, they should get one



yes cork has a language, and a history of being a seperate state? (on the level of scotland, aka avoid harping back to when ireland wasnt unified)

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

sorry turgon
''why?'' is also a poor form of counter argument

Pardon me? He made a statement and I asked for his reasons for tat motive. Thats not even an argument its just probing.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but in the future should they want a seperate state, they should get one

Obviously.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

yes cork has a language, and a history of being a seperate state? (on the level of scotland, aka avoid harping back to when ireland wasnt unified)

So now they have to have history of having been independent, thats a huge quantifier you have just put in there to suit yourself.

What "level" do you want to go to? Im not allowed go back a certain time in history. So should Northern Ireland be independent? How about the federal-like states of France?

Basically what Im trying to suggest is that you cannot have generalised ideal rules as to which areas/ethnic groups should be independent, it should be on a case-by-case basis.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

regi

I'm always disappointed at the lack of threads calling for a UDI for the home counties...

Raskolnikov

Deleted User wrote: »

That would really test the geography of Celtic fans.

I mean, could they really keep playing that oppressed Oirish card if they were no longer under the tyranny of the Union Jack, would they have to face facts and at last accept they were in a completely different and now independant country etc. etc.

Nonsensical point that has little to do with the topic at hand.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

El Stuntman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

pretty much describes a lot of what's been going on up North :pac:

conchubhar1

turgon wrote: »

Pardon me? He made a statement and I asked for his reasons for tat motive. Thats not even an argument its just probing.

okay


Obviously.

indeed - so the argument/discussion should be over...........


So now they have to have history of having been independent, thats a huge quantifier you have just put in there to suit yourself.

not really

What "level" do you want to go to? Im not allowed go back a certain time in history. So should Northern Ireland be independent? How about the federal-like states of France?

you can go back - but then we would all be in tribes or as individuals or as not existing

drawing a time to stop, is practical more than anything

should they want to be - let the certain french areas

if the not votes that - again yes

Basically what Im trying to suggest is that you cannot have generalised ideal rules as to which areas/ethnic groups should be independent, it should be on a case-by-case basis.

if any area or people want to be independent and vote on such, yes they can split off.

Raskolnikov

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Nonsensical point that has little to do with the topic at hand.

Your own post there hasn't exactly advanced the debate a whole pile.

My point was slightly tongue in cheek, it wouldn't be the biggest issue in Scottish independance of course. But you know that whole Celthic mock Oirish routine (and the similar one by Rangers wrapping themselves in the British Empire stuff), making millions flogging teehsirts on the back of famines and misery and civil wars that have little to do with the average Glaswegian, well I'd like to see the end of Scottish clubs raking it in on symbols of my national identity and let them concentrate on their own identity.

conchubhar1

scottish independence debate

not a soccer fan debate

IIMII

IRISHSPORTSGUY wrote: »

To put it bluntly, can anyone see it happening?

No. Many Scots are of English descent and even more don't care. Many of them like being part of the UK. Whether they keep the 'UK' going long term doesn't bother me as long as Ireland isn't part of it. If the Scots want to be part of the UK, let them at it. Where Irish people often make a mistake concerning Scotland is confusing religious bigotry with political ideology. Their is no real Scottish 'republican' movement - ie in that they want an independent republic of Scotland. More often than not they are really just interested in devolution, not a disolution of the union with England

conchubhar1

scottish nationalist party ^

BroomBurner

Didn't they already have their chance and turned it down? Or was I imagining that whole thing a couple of years back?

Can'tseeme

First of all if the people want it they should have it. It would obviously be better for the people of Scotland that their government would have real power on economy, taxation, benefits, immigration, international affairs, etc. Instead of going along with what Westminster tells them they're doing. The economic situation is obviously something that has to be looked at. But I think it's a very negative outlook to think that the people of Scotland can't help to grow their own economy and to bring in business and investment over time. I don't know if those stories about oil resources are true. I watched something about only half the oil resources in th enorth sea have been used and with more opportunities for further drilling. I think it would be a positive move for Scotland and would give them a proper place in international affairs instead beiing marginalized the way they are now.

turgon

conchubhar1 wrote: »

scottish nationalist party ^

No. The SNP advocated independence but with the monarchy. That poster correctly pointed out there are no outright republican groups, only small numbers within the SNP.

conchubhar1

okay my bad

it doesnt have to be republican it is about independence

--
has anyone any links to where the snp stated they are pro monarchy

IIMII

conchubhar1 wrote: »

okay my bad

it doesnt have to be republican it is about independence

--
has anyone any links to where the snp stated they are pro monarchy

Well, if it isn't a republic who will be their head of state? Elizabeth Windsor? Not really independence if you have a foreign monarch as your head of state

turgon

IIMII wrote: »

Well, if it isn't a republic who will be their head of state? Elizabeth Windsor? Not really independence if you have a foreign monarch as your head of state

How will it be a foreign Monarch? The monarchy was formed by a family (personal) Union of the original Heads of England and Scotland respectively. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_the_Crowns. James the sixth of Scotland was James the first of England.

conchubar1: SNP wikipedia article asfaik.

IIMII

turgon wrote: »

How will it be a foreign Monarch?

Is she Scottish?

conchubhar1

canada?

australia?

IIMII

conchubhar1 wrote: »

canada?

australia?

Ireland?

conchubhar1

turgon wrote: »

How will it be a foreign Monarch? The monarchy was formed by a family (personal) Union of the original Heads of England and Scotland respectively. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_the_Crowns. James the sixth of Scotland was James the first of England.

conchubar1: SNP wikipedia article asfaik.

yes, as the welsh as believed the tudors(?) were the welsh mabagon(?) - doesnt mean it is an all encompasing and fair monarchy

it was the union of crowns, how many have been scottish since?

thanks

conchubhar1

IIMII wrote: »

Ireland?

our head of state is mary mcaleese or cowen?


canadas head of state is the british monarch? no?

they are independent?

turgon

Are you saying Mary McAleese shouldnt be president of Ireland, on account of her being born in the UK?

IIMII

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it was the union of crowns, how many have been scottish since?

Let's see, we are talking 400 years.... Hmmm...

IIMII

turgon wrote: »

Are you saying Mary McAleese shouldnt be president of Ireland

Isn't she Irish?

conchubhar1

IIMII wrote: »

Let's see, we are talking 400 years.... Hmmm...

406 ish actualy

i fail to see your point

conchubhar1

her being born in the uk is a mute point - but im a nationalist so... ignore that