Scottish Independence - What say you?

Cathaoirleach

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I don't know if Scotland has the financial stability/security to go it alone.

Neither does Ireland, evidently!

gurramok

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I didn't spring to any conclusion :rolleyes: I put it to ye good folk to see what your opinion on it was and suggested that perhaps eventually Scottish independence could lead to violence in the North, as more separatists up North may think "hey, we've been looking to break from Britain for yeeeears now and you give Scotland independence? No fair "

Nah, the GFA has largely ensure peace in that respect. England will continue to pay for NI out of their goodwill of course

purplepanda

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Borders region should campaign for partition if the worst happens.

So going against the majority wishes of the Scottish nation & people

Cavehill Red

gurramok wrote: »

Nah, the GFA has largely ensure peace in that respect. England will continue to pay for NI out of their goodwill of course

What Scottish independence would do, especially, as is fairly likely, if they remained under the crown and using sterling, is put enormous pressure on Ulster Unionism in a quite existential way. Their espoused identity is that of Ulster-Scots within a United Kingdom with Britain. When the other half of their putative hybrid identity secedes, the justification for their political union with an entity they themselves claim not to be especially related to becomes much more tenuous.

The result could be either a further resurgence of Ulster nationalism (think late Paisleyite DUP or the saner end of the TUV) or a reaction against the (largely recently constructed) Ulster Scots identification. Obviously Scottish secession would be a great boost to those seeking to sever the union between the North of Ireland and England also.

While that suggests increased political extremism among the main parties in power in Stormont, it doesn't necessarily make the GFA unworkable, unless Westminster decides to look again at the nature of NI's involvement in the UK in light of Scottish secession. They might choose to reduce or remove the block grant system for example.

The main result for NI of Scottish independence is a further erosion of Unionist confidence and increased confusion about their own political project, while the argument for Irish reunification is given a shot in the arm. Unionists will be forced to rethink what they're doing and where they're going, and even who they are. It's my fervent hope that it might just be the trigger sufficient to remind them that they are Irish and not British, Britain being a close neighbouring island with which they share much culture and history and will continue to do so indefinitely, but not necessarily any more than that.

LordSutch

Stinicker wrote: »

Scotland will vote Yes to Independence in 2014 and they will give the vote to 16 year olds and the scottish youth will vote yes to Independence. Scotland's budgets are in surplus and they have massive oil and gas reserve which London has looted for decades.

Scotland will this and Scotland will that . . . you must have a crystal ball :rolleyes:

Stinicker wrote: »

It is enivatable that Scotland will leave, Cameron also wants Scotland to go for political reasons as they have only 1 MP in Scotland and Scotland plays a large part in electing Labour to Westminster. Getting rid of Scotland will cement Tory rule in the UK crushing Labour for decades.

And we're off again, and why do you say that "It is inevitatable that Scotland will leave" . . . how do you know that? you then go on to contradict yourself by saying "Getting rid of Scotland will cement Tory rule in the UK crushing Labour for decades", but how could the Tory's rule the UK if there was no UK anymore?

Sunnyisland

voodoo wrote: »

You mean that the people of NI will decide. Glad to see you would accept the GFA principles. So if the majority want a united Ireland in years to come you will accept that.[/QUOTE]

KeithAFC wrote: »

It has nothing to do with Scotland, that much is clear.

He has never answered that question ever .

Doc Ruby

Three quarters in favour and a handful of people posting from the UK, good stuff so far...

Chuck Stone

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's my fervent hope that it might just be the trigger sufficient to remind them that they are Irish and not British

This is highly unlikely.

I don't see what the problem would be with Unionists holding onto their sense of Britishness, whatever that is, even in the event of a unified Ireland.

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

voodoo wrote: »

You mean that the people of NI will decide. Glad to see you would accept the GFA principles. So if the majority want a united Ireland in years to come you will accept that.[/QUOTE]




He has never answered that question ever .

It is a bit of a daft question though.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

What Scottish independence would do, especially, as is fairly likely, if they remained under the crown and using sterling, is put enormous pressure on Ulster Unionism in a quite existential way. Their espoused identity is that of Ulster-Scots within a United Kingdom with Britain. When the other half of their putative hybrid identity secedes, the justification for their political union with an entity they themselves claim not to be especially related to becomes much more tenuous.

The result could be either a further resurgence of Ulster nationalism (think late Paisleyite DUP or the saner end of the TUV) or a reaction against the (largely recently constructed) Ulster Scots identification. Obviously Scottish secession would be a great boost to those seeking to sever the union between the North of Ireland and England also.

While that suggests increased political extremism among the main parties in power in Stormont, it doesn't necessarily make the GFA unworkable, unless Westminster decides to look again at the nature of NI's involvement in the UK in light of Scottish secession. They might choose to reduce or remove the block grant system for example.

The main result for NI of Scottish independence is a further erosion of Unionist confidence and increased confusion about their own political project, while the argument for Irish reunification is given a shot in the arm. Unionists will be forced to rethink what they're doing and where they're going, and even who they are. It's my fervent hope that it might just be the trigger sufficient to remind them that they are Irish and not British, Britain being a close neighbouring island with which they share much culture and history and will continue to do so indefinitely, but not necessarily any more than that.

Ulster nationalism is never too far away from Ulster Unionism. It is just under the veil. Keeping the Union together from a Unionist point of view makes sense in terms of politics at the minute. Ulster nationalism is not something which is never discussed amongst the Unionist community.

Many a time have I discussed this topic all over Ulster at band parades and lodges.

Immaculate Pasta

KeithAFC wrote: »

Ulster nationalism is never too far away from Ulster Unionism. It is just under the veil. Keeping the Union together from a Unionist point of view makes sense in terms of politics at the minute. Ulster nationalism is not something which is never discussed amongst the Unionist community.

Many a time have I discussed this topic all over Ulster at band parades and lodges.

Oh Keith. You're a walking cliché aren't you?

losthorizon

InTheTrees wrote: »

The union jack will look a little weird if they have to take the blue out of it.

Wales isn't represented in the UK flag at all and Ireland didn't want to be put into the Union in 1801 wnen Britain changed their flag to incorporate the cross of St Patrick. The poor welsh!

NinjaK

The Celtic races should unite against the Anglo Saxon invader foe!

gurramok

KeithAFC wrote: »

Ulster nationalism is never too far away from Ulster Unionism. It is just under the veil. Keeping the Union together from a Unionist point of view makes sense in terms of politics at the minute. Ulster nationalism is not something which is never discussed amongst the Unionist community.

Many a time have I discussed this topic all over Ulster at band parades and lodges.

Reminds me of the recent football match between NI and Scotland in Dublin where the NI supporters largely booed the Scots anthem and the Scots largely booed GTSQ. Ironic considering most NI supporters who are of Unionist persuasion consider themselves of Scottish descent!!

dj jarvis

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Alec Salmond is an admirably astute politician and his wanting to include the third (devo-max) option is a master stroke and a brilliant example of long-term vision. It brings Scotland that much closer to full independence and allows many or most of the institutions of a sovereign state to be put in place, developed and honed so that the country is well equipped with the instruments it needs to respond to changes beyond its borders when the need arises. The more the Tories and the other unionist parties try to remove that third option from the referendum, the more determined the Scots will become to go their own way.:)

As a student of history, one parallel that comes to mind is that of Finland, which was part of Russia until 1917. However, it had considerable autonomy, even its own currency, and all of the apparatus of state that was needed when the Czar's empire finally collapsed. Finland was able to declare itself independent almost immediately and successfully defend that independence against the attacks of the Bolsheviks and their local allies. :cool:

The same will apply in a quasi-independent Scotland when, as I suspect will inevitably happen, the UK collapses under the sheer weight of its own contradictions.;)

Given that there are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs, Salmond is right when he says the days when the Tories could dictate to the Scots are over and done with.:)

so i take it you have seen taalla pohjantahden alla and read vaino linnas " under the north star " - and the ubiquitous " unknown soldier " really interesting period of Finnish history - they have the same independence day as the republic , 5th of december

dj jarvis

back on topic

it should work for the scots in the long run on one condition ,

once the English , ie London dont put the boot in as they did with the republic after independence they should be ok
a scorned england is bad for business - we should know

woodoo

gurramok wrote: »

Reminds me of the recent football match between NI and Scotland in Dublin where the NI supporters largely booed the Scots anthem and the Scots largely booed GTSQ. Ironic considering most NI supporters who are of Unionist persuasion consider themselves of Scottish descent!!

lol I didn't know that, the aul ulster unionists are a strange bunch indeed.

mathepac

I didn't vote for a few good reasons, mainly:

• I'm an abstentionist from way back
• I'm not 18
• I think we've given the Scotch people enough, for example:
  1. Our language, even if they can't pronounce Gaelic properly (Hint: it has nothing to do with matters French)
  2. Our music
  3. Our family names
  4. Our whiskey (although they can't spell it)
  5. Their best actor (Sean O'Connaire)
  6. The skirts their men wear, before even Goldenballs tried it (the French donated the designs on the 'les tiretaignes' which the Scotch shortened to "tartans")
  7. Their legends
  8. their religion
  9. Their national sport
  10. Their most succesful soccer team, even though they still can't pronounce the name properly
  11. And so on

The last thing I want to do as a citizen of Ireland is to try to influence the outcome of their referendum, but maybe they should come back home, the wandering tattie-hookers that they are, and be ruled from Dublin like real men and not bother with the Brits at all. The Scotch are Irish too so why not go the whole hog?

Cavehill Red

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This is highly unlikely.

I don't see what the problem would be with Unionists holding onto their sense of Britishness, whatever that is, even in the event of a unified Ireland.

The issue is what does 'British' mean in the context of two states on the island of Britain. It becomes a geographical rather than a political term, primarily. Unionists have been moving away from the cultural designator 'British' towards a hybrid designator of 'Ulster-Scot' for some time now, and Scottish secession puts that identity in a position of being allied with two entities - Ireland and Scotland - neither of which is run from Westminster.
In that situation, their chosen cultural identity suggests that neither should they be. Hence, my prediction of either a surge in Ulster nationalism or else perhaps a rapprochement, long overdue in my opinion, of their reclaiming their Irish heritage and forging a lasting rather than a provisional relationship with the rest of the island.

Cavehill Red

KeithAFC wrote: »

Ulster nationalism is never too far away from Ulster Unionism. It is just under the veil. Keeping the Union together from a Unionist point of view makes sense in terms of politics at the minute. Ulster nationalism is not something which is never discussed amongst the Unionist community.

Many a time have I discussed this topic all over Ulster at band parades and lodges.

I think at heart, you're a rationalist, Keith. Perhaps sometimes your positions come across to what is a largely non-sympathetic audience here as knee-jerk, but I'm aware from my own exposure to Ulster Unionism (got some in the family and many friends) that what you say above is largely correct.

Especially in the DUP, there is an appetite for Ulster nationalism that dates back at least as far as the Seventies. And I think you're brave and honest to admit that this debate is taking place extensively even among grass-roots Unionism and Loyalism.
That does, as you suggest, make the Union with Westminster somewhat provisional. The issue arising is the viability of a six county nation with a poor industrial base. Obviously the idea of Ulster nationalism is the least favoured option of Irish nationalists in the North, so in addition to being largely unviable, it would also be significantly opposed, and there is currently no provision for Ulster independence under the GFA.

If there was a big surge in Ulster nationalism that became entrenched, we could see a sad repeat of the teens and 20s, when the aftermath of the Covenant led to many years of poor relations between the two communities. My best guess, based on the improvement in community relations and greater mutual understanding, is that whatever would happen would depend significantly on the economic circumstances north and south of the border at the time, on the political leadership available, and on the extent to which those who are currently Unionist might be assured of their identity and self-determination within a non-independence arrangement.

It's the only way I really see Irish unification coming about to be honest - the collapse of Ulster nationalism following moves towards independence from Westminster in the face of economic realities, resulting in a negotiated settlement that gave Ulster self-determination within Ireland and with British (or Scottish and English) input.

woodoo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The issue is what does 'British' mean in the context of two states on the island of Britain. It becomes a geographical rather than a political term, primarily. Unionists have been moving away from the cultural designator 'British' towards a hybrid designator of 'Ulster-Scot' for some time now, and Scottish secession puts that identity in a position of being allied with two entities - Ireland and Scotland - neither of which is run from Westminster.
In that situation, their chosen cultural identity suggests that neither should they be. Hence, my prediction of either a surge in Ulster nationalism or else perhaps a rapprochement, long overdue in my opinion, of their reclaiming their Irish heritage and forging a lasting rather than a provisional relationship with the rest of the island.

You don't often hear of Leinster Scots or Munster Scots.

woodoo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Obviously the idea of Ulster nationalism is the least favoured option of Irish nationalists in the North, so in addition to being largely unviable, it would also be significantly opposed, and there is currently no provision for Ulster independence under the GFA.

Its not as scary a prospect for nationalists anymore as not too far from now there may be a slight catholic majority. The old orange oppressors will no longer be dealing with a minority catholic population. The old idea of an orange state for an orange people will be long dead.

Cavehill Red

woodoo wrote: »

You don't often hear of Leinster Scots or Munster Scots.

No, you don't for two good reasons - one legitimate and one not. The legitimate reason is that Ulster was planted largely by Scots, whereas the British occupation in the rest of Ireland was much more uniformally English. The Ulster-Scots heritage is a real and legitimate one.
However, the recently created cultural identity has much less legitimacy. It stems largely from the parity of esteem discussions during the GFA negotiations, when SF and the SDLP were requesting cultural assurances, such as protection for the Irish language, and Trimble's advisor Lord Laird suggested he demand (and he got) parity of esteem. Having achieved funding for a cultural identity and language, it was then essential to cobble one together at short notice, leading to the risible invention of the non-existent 'Ulster-Scots' language, which has never existed in the North of Ireland and is in fact simply Scots Lallans.
The illegitimacy of this goes further though, because by designating people as Ulster Scots, they effectively have erased from history 'Big House' unionism, Anglicanism, and English planter descendants from their origin myth.

Cavehill Red

woodoo wrote: »

Its not as scary a prospect for nationalists anymore as not too far from now there may be a slight catholic majority. The old orange oppressors will no longer be dealing with a minority catholic population. The old idea of an orange state for an orange people will be long dead.

There are still plenty alive who recall the 'Protestant parliament for a Protestant people'. I appreciate that Ulster protestants have changed, but the fear of returning to a gerrymandered state is so ingrained and led to such a horrific civil war in the North that became so protracted, that Nationalists will for generations to come be significantly more in favour of devolution under Westminster union than outright independence.

And I've never been convinced by the demographic argument, to be honest. Things are always more complex than sectarian headcounts. I have Catholic relatives who vote unionist and Protestant relatives voting Sinn Fein and SDLP.

woodoo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The illegitimacy of this goes further though, because by designating people as Ulster Scots, they effectively have erased from history 'Big House' unionism, Anglicanism, and English planter descendants from their origin myth.

I noticed Peter Robinson is claiming to be an Ulster Scot as is John Taylor. Both of those are old English names.

woodoo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And I've never been convinced by the demographic argument, to be honest. Things are always more complex than sectarian headcounts. I have Catholic relatives who vote unionist and Protestant relatives voting Sinn Fein and SDLP.

But catholic unionist will not discriminate or refer to catholic nationalists as taigs etc.

Cavehill Red

woodoo wrote: »

I noticed Peter Robinson is claiming to be an Ulster Scot as is John Taylor. Both of those are old English names.

Indeed. I sometimes think we Irish are the most self-destructive people on Earth. Not simply in terms of our drinking rates or whatever. I mean in the sense that we're the only people to deny genocides that we actually were subjected to (rather than committed) and in the case you cite above, the only people who actively seek to eradicate our own heritage and history in favour of one invented in the past couple of decades.

Cavehill Red

woodoo wrote: »

But catholic unionist will not discriminate or refer to catholic nationalists as taigs etc.

Agreed. But all I'm saying is that a simple Catholic majority is not necessarily an indicator of a majority in favour of unifying the island. Neo-partitionism runs deep on both sides of the border, and no party, not even the Shinners, has ever put forward concrete proposals of how unification might look practically. Not one white paper. Not one protocol. Nothing.

So without further work done in that area (after all, how do you sell a unified Ireland to a people suspicious of it without explaining to them exactly what it is and how it benefits rather than threatens them?), I remain unconvinced that the provisions are in place to make unification possible right now.

I would hope that nationalists on either side of the border will pull their fingers out and start this work, so that if things do develop quickly and Scotland does secede from the UK, there is something to present to the currently Unionist people of the North of Ireland that will assure them in times of upheaval that their best future lies as a semi-autonomous part of the island they live on, with oversight and security for their sense of cultural identity assured by Scotland and England.

Cathaoirleach

Having lived in Scotland during the naughties, I very much doubt that the majority would vote for independence. However, perhaps things have changed since.

In an ideal world, I would like to see Scotland go its own way and make use of its resources in the North Sea and build on it's large financial services sector in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

I want to see England on its own without the continuous financial drain from Scotland, Wales, and the Six Counties. It would be nice to see England get rid of it's ridiculous fantasy monarch and become a full republic.

If Andorra and Lichtenstein can function as micro states, so can Wales.

And the Six Counties, they will just have to be the last remaining burden on mother England until the Unionist minority dwindle to nothing. Then they can be annexed by Iceland and the rest can re-join Ireland if they will have us.

tomasocarthaigh

I think there should be a Max Devolution option in the poll to reflect what Salmond plans to give to the Scots as options...