Scottish Independence - What say you?

woodoo

I think Ulster Scots is quite a weak identity to try and hold onto. If your name is Hazel McTavish from Ballymena and you marry an Englishman called Jeremy Buckingham and they all live in Ballymena now. Are the children Ulster Scots? What if one of the children marry an Irish person with an irish name. Are they still Ulster Scots??

tomasocarthaigh

Identity is more than blood in veins... its who you say you are. To spite a person in that senairo being 1/4 Ulster Scots, if thats the dominant culture they identify with, then they are.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

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.

If Scottish independence does go ahead, I don't see it effecting Northern Ireland right away. The GFA will still be the main catalyst which will answer the national question.

In regards to Ulster nationalism, Irish Nationalists who would want a 32 county Irish Republic would IMO be better moving towards Ulster nationalism. They will still have a majority amongst their people in Ulster if you count all the 9 counties up but it will have a large Ulster Scots following with them who would go down that route instead of a United Ireland. So it would be uniting the Ulster people. It isn't about uniting the island.

Putting the 3 counties of Ulster aside in the Republic, the rest don't seem to want the Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland anyway. So perhaps a movement in the future towards Ulster nationalism might have more backing.

Many people I do know who are politically Unionist would look at Ulster nationalism as a 2nd card to play. Perhaps deep down that is what they would like but doubt if it would be viable in reality.

I have always said that the feeling towards the English in terms of Unionism in Ulster is not as favourable as some Irish Nationalists might think. But politically it makes sense in this climate to retain the Union.

bodhrandude

When I moved back there to do my journalism degree I opened a bank account in Edinburgh, when making online purchases with the bank card it always bugged me that Ireland was in the drop down menu but not Scotland, we have to put the United Kingdom instead. Im not United Kingdomish Im bloody Scottish.

Cavehill Red

The three Ulster counties in the republic won't be involved in that way, Keith. Again, just as with Ulster independence, there's no provision for redrawing the borders either expansively as you suggest, or more narrowly focusing on Antrim and Down to retain a Loyalist majority, as the UDA used to suggest.

The experience of partition has led to slightly divergent cultures, and that will have to be acknowledged in any fundamental resolution. Hence Ulster nationalists will pursue a six county state if the UK breaks up, while Irish nationalists will seek to persuade them to pursue an autonomous role within a unified Ireland.

I think it's good that the prospect of Scotland renegotiating its relationship with Westminster has got people thinking in the North about who they are, where they are and what they want to be again. The GFA is ultimately a sticking plaster solution that could come apart in the same way that Sunningdale did, if it isn't sufficiently supported.

The concern is that it might not be in the event of Scottish secession, as Unionism might be inclined to move to option 2 (Ulster independence or a variant thereof) while Nationalism will feel that the time is right to push on towards a form of unification. The prospects aren't good for an independent Ulster however.

Many of the population would actively (maybe even violently) oppose such a move, and the legalities would be horrendous - would I be entitled to three passports? What if I refused Ulster nationality and insisted on Irish and/or British? What is the provision for Ulster independence given that it isn't accommodated within the GFA? How could an independent Ulster sustain itself with its economy outside of either the UK or Ireland?

I support the right of the Scottish people to reassert their nationhood. But I am conscious that it will not be without ramifications for the North of Ireland, which is only a few sea miles away, and none of us can predict the full extent of those ramifications nor how they'll pan out in actuality.

KeithAFC

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The three Ulster counties in the republic won't be involved in that way, Keith. Again, just as with Ulster independence, there's no provision for redrawing the borders either expansively as you suggest, or more narrowly focusing on Antrim and Down to retain a Loyalist majority, as the UDA used to suggest.

The experience of partition has led to slightly divergent cultures, and that will have to be acknowledged in any fundamental resolution. Hence Ulster nationalists will pursue a six county state if the UK breaks up, while Irish nationalists will seek to persuade them to pursue an autonomous role within a unified Ireland.

I think it's good that the prospect of Scotland renegotiating its relationship with Westminster has got people thinking in the North about who they are, where they are and what they want to be again. The GFA is ultimately a sticking plaster solution that could come apart in the same way that Sunningdale did, if it isn't sufficiently supported.

The concern is that it might not be in the event of Scottish secession, as Unionism might be inclined to move to option 2 (Ulster independence or a variant thereof) while Nationalism will feel that the time is right to push on towards a form of unification. The prospects aren't good for an independent Ulster however.

Many of the population would actively (maybe even violently) oppose such a move, and the legalities would be horrendous - would I be entitled to three passports? What if I refused Ulster nationality and insisted on Irish and/or British? What is the provision for Ulster independence given that it isn't accommodated within the GFA? How could an independent Ulster sustain itself with its economy outside of either the UK or Ireland?

I support the right of the Scottish people to reassert their nationhood. But I am conscious that it will not be without ramifications for the North of Ireland, which is only a few sea miles away, and none of us can predict the full extent of those ramifications nor how they'll pan out in actuality.

Good post. Yep. Like I said, it will be interesting to see if it does happen and what the future does hold. I do think Republicans do have to convince many people in the Republic of Ireland about a United Ireland.

I am not too sure a vote in the Republic would get a yes at the moment or even in the next few years.

dlofnep

Well Keith - If I've learned one thing about the debate over in Britain, it's that 'subsidies' are a contentious issue in England. Once the Scottish question is out of the limelight, you can be sure that English nationalists will start to question the cost of subsidising the north (Which is deeply in the red). There may come a day when your only friend will be the rest of the island, and the pressure will be on northern politicians to seriously reduce it's dependence on Westminster in order for it to remain in the union.

Deep down inside, I think you'd be bored if Irish nationalists didn't exist. It's like when a girlfriend breaks up with you - when you stop giving her attention and find a new girlfriend, she all of a sudden wants you back. I have no doubt that Unionists would feel slightly uneasy if Irish nationalists didn't exist. They would have no inherent excuse or reason to propagate British/Ulster nationalism. The ying to your yang I guess..

I think in 25 years from now, the entire relationship between England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales will be changed, and probably for the better.

charlemont

KeithAFC wrote: »

Good post. Yep. Like I said, it will be interesting to see if it does happen and what the future does hold. I do think Republicans do have to convince many people in the Republic of Ireland about a United Ireland.

I am not too sure a vote in the Republic would get a yes at the moment or even in the next few years.

It would have a large voter turnout and its opponents would also turn out in large numbers but a Yes vote would be the most likely outcome and a lot of undecided voters would follow their hearts and vote Yes.

grenache

mathepac wrote: »

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?

For the last time, "Scotch" is a whiskey. The people are Scots.

bwatson

woodoo wrote: »

I think Ulster Scots is quite a weak identity to try and hold onto. If your name is Hazel McTavish from Ballymena and you marry an Englishman called Jeremy Buckingham and they all live in Ballymena now. Are the children Ulster Scots? What if one of the children marry an Irish person with an irish name. Are they still Ulster Scots??

First and foremost the young man should be content to be a native of the finest town in the United Kingdom

I'm from Ballymena and a proud loyalist. I would quite like to see the United Kingdom remain, and as of yet I have not been in any way worried that we might see the end if the union in any way in the next couple of years.

The OP and his band of republican chums want to see Scottish independence because they want too see what they percieve as infighting, weakening, turmoil and the crumbling of a nation they simply dislike. They are desperate for what they would interpret as a victory for Irish nationalists. I find it quite funny to see how so many Irish think they have a special connection with Scotland - the nation where you will find more anti-irish feeling than in any other. Having studied in England it has become quite clear just how little they care about the Irish Republic and its folk or any issues to do with Northern Ireland nowadays.

Regardless, Scottish independence would in no way signal the end for Northern Ireland. Of course there is a very special connection to Scotland but a free Scotland wouldnt impact the fact that ultimately we would still be part of the United Kingdom (in whatever form it took) and all who were loyal before would remain so.

All fantasy anyway, as Scottish independence simply will not happen and most here know it.

Cavehill Red

bwatson wrote: »

First and foremost the young man should be content to be a native of the finest town in the United Kingdom

Yes, indeed. Ulster's heroin capital.

bwatson wrote: »

I'm from Ballymena and a proud loyalist.

Commiserations.

bwatson wrote: »

I would quite like to see the United Kingdom remain, and as of yet I have not been in any way worried that we might see the end if the union in any way in the next couple of years.

Strange, since your fellow lovers of the union David Cameron and Peter Robinson seem extremely concerned, and since a vote is due imminently.

bwatson wrote: »

The OP and his band of republican chums want to see Scottish independence because they want too see what they percieve as infighting, weakening, turmoil and the crumbling of a nation they simply dislike. They are desperate for what they would interpret as a victory for Irish nationalists.

Or, as citizens of one small independent country free of the yoke of Westminster imperialism, they simply support the right to self-determination of another.

bwatson wrote: »

I find it quite funny to see how so many Irish think they have a special connection with Scotland - the nation where you will find more anti-irish feeling than in any other.

Actually, the nation with the most anti-Irish feeling is ... Ireland, of course. You'd be an illustration of that bizarre yet all-too-real phenomenon yourself.

bwatson wrote: »

Having studied in England it has become quite clear just how little they care about the Irish Republic and its folk or any issues to do with Northern Ireland nowadays.

Oh dear. Did the nasty Englishmen call you Paddy? :rolleyes:
Of course they're bored rigid with the North. Everyone is, including most of the residents of the North. My experience is that, as befits an archipelago with a long shared cultural history, the English take an especial interest in Ireland above and beyond all other nations than their own. This is reflected in their music, arts, sport, TV, politics and general culture, where the Irish and Irish-themed issues receive disproportionate prominence.

bwatson wrote: »

Regardless, Scottish independence would in no way signal the end for Northern Ireland. Of course there is a very special connection to Scotland but a free Scotland wouldnt impact the fact that ultimately we would still be part of the United Kingdom (in whatever form it took) and all who were loyal before would remain so.

What Scottish secession would signal is the end of the union as we know it, as predicted in Trevor Nairn's book 'After Britain' many years ago. Nairn was a constitutional advisor to Blair, and had a hand in developing devolution in Scotland, NI and Wales. The endgame as he saw it was independent regions in England too. This is not an isolated incident, after which it will be carry on as normal. This isn't even the start of something. Scottish secession is the midpoint in a continuum which Nairn laid out in the Nineties, featuring the deconstruction of the antiquated construct that is the UK. As for its ramifications on the North of Ireland, I've made my thoughts clear already. No one knows what happens next for NI, but I've offered my best guesses.

bwatson wrote: »

All fantasy anyway, as Scottish independence simply will not happen and most here know it.

Au contraire. It will inevitably happen. The question is when. I suspect not imminently. There will be devo max first to prepare the Scottish institutions for full independence and to prepare the rest of Britain for its departure. As a poster above explained, I expect to see a radically altered set of relationships across these two islands in the next decade or two.

I always admire the determined stubbornness of some unionists to defy reality. On occasion it has led to stunning acts of bravery, as at the Somme. On this occasion, to deny reality would be to get left behind, ostrich-like, with your head in the sand as history passes you by and others decide your fate for you.

This is why Peter Robinson has seen fit to speak out and take a close interest. He knows, even if you do not, that Scottish independence is likely, maybe later rather than sooner, and that he must have a say at the table.

bwatson

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Or, as citizens of one small independent country free of the yoke of Westminster imperialism, they simply support the right to self-determination of another.

It doesn't just seem to be the right to self determination that they want though, does it? Scotland has that right. The fact is that a referendum determining Scotland's future is scheduled for 2014. The Westminster government are beginning to look at ways to legitimize and act upon any referendum result.

Currently, even the most ardent of Scottish Nationalists would be forced to admit that at best support for independence is at around 37 to 38%. Salmond and his cronies will have plenty of time to screw up before 2014 comes around too, just as the old hag Nicola Sturgeon did on BBC Question Time (most Irish seem to occupy themselves with British affairs so will have tuned in) when pushed for any answer of substance.

It can therefore be assumed that as of this moment the Scots do not want independence, even though the option is clearly available to them.

This is not supporting the rights of the Scottish people. This is a desire to see what they believe is the downfall of all they despise.

As I said however I genuinely do not believe that we will see the United Kingdom break up in the near nor forseeable future.

Cavehill Red

bwatson wrote: »

It doesn't just seem to be the right to self determination that they want though, does it? Scotland has that right. The fact is that a referendum determining Scotland's future is scheduled for 2014. The Westminster government are beginning to look at ways to legitimize and act upon any referendum result.

Scotland does not have self-determination. It's actions are circumscribed by whatever Westminster permits currently.

bwatson wrote: »

Currently, even the most ardent of Scottish Nationalists would be forced to admit that at best support for independence is at around 37 to 38%. Salmond and his cronies will have plenty of time to screw up before 2014 comes around too, just as the old hag Nicola Sturgeon did on BBC Question Time (most Irish seem to occupy themselves with British affairs so will have tuned in) when pushed for any answer of substance.

It can therefore be assumed that as of this moment the Scots do not want independence, even though the option is clearly available to them.

Well, firstly, the option isn't available to them currently. As you yourself pointed out, it was only this week that a schedule for a vote was established. Secondly, that vote could well be on devo max rather than outright independence, which would more than likely pass comprehensively, paving the way for a later independence vote a few years down the line. That would be what I suspect will happen imminently. Finally, the SNP may have the opportunity to 'screw up' as you put it, but so do the ConDems, and currently it seems to me crystal clear which of the two has more support in Scotland.

bwatson wrote: »

This is not supporting the rights of the Scottish people. This is a desire to see what they believe is the downfall of all they despise.

I've no idea what you're talking about here. Who despises what? What downfall?

bwatson wrote: »

As I said however I genuinely do not believe that we will see the United Kingdom break up in the near nor forseeable future.

As many a man has found, there can be an awful big difference between beliefs and reality. Neither Cameron nor Robinson are as complacent as you. I only wish they were. Scotland would attain its independence much quicker.

mathepac

grenache wrote: »

For the last time, "Scotch" is a whiskey. The people are Scots.

Glad to hear it'll be your last post on the matter.

KeithAFC

bwatson wrote: »

First and foremost the young man should be content to be a native of the finest town in the United Kingdom

I'm from Ballymena and a proud loyalist. I would quite like to see the United Kingdom remain, and as of yet I have not been in any way worried that we might see the end if the union in any way in the next couple of years.

The OP and his band of republican chums want to see Scottish independence because they want too see what they percieve as infighting, weakening, turmoil and the crumbling of a nation they simply dislike. They are desperate for what they would interpret as a victory for Irish nationalists. I find it quite funny to see how so many Irish think they have a special connection with Scotland - the nation where you will find more anti-irish feeling than in any other. Having studied in England it has become quite clear just how little they care about the Irish Republic and its folk or any issues to do with Northern Ireland nowadays.

Regardless, Scottish independence would in no way signal the end for Northern Ireland. Of course there is a very special connection to Scotland but a free Scotland wouldnt impact the fact that ultimately we would still be part of the United Kingdom (in whatever form it took) and all who were loyal before would remain so.

All fantasy anyway, as Scottish independence simply will not happen and most here know it.

Love Ballymena. Great place to play on the 12th.

I also agree with you on Scottish independence. I don't think it will happen either but IMO it would be unwise to underestimate the SNP. They are a tricky lot. So Unionism should be ready to counter the arguments they put forward.

Son Of A Vidic

For a nation who sings 'Flower of Scotland' with such gusto, it's about time they stopped being ironic, grew some balls and walked the walked. Personally, I really couldn't give a shít though.

bnt

I'm originally from Scotland, though I haven't lived there for many years. I have mixed feelings about this because the notion of "independence" is a confusing one these days.

There are different possible scenarios: for example, what if Scotland left the UK then joined the Eurozone? As things stand, they would be joining a single currency, with agreements about how they're supposed to run their economy. Like Ireland, they would be free to set their own tax rates and social spending policies, for example. Or they could try the same thing with Sterling. That model (monetary union with fiscal independence) has some serious questions hanging over it, to put it politely.

The way some commentators in the UK are talking, they make it sounds as if they'd be rebuilding Hadrian's Wall, putting in customs and immigration checks, separate currencies, and so on. A more likely scenario would be like Belgium and the Netherlands are: they are independent countries, with their own policies, but there is no real border. People live in one country and work in the other, just a normal commute. But the big questions of how it would work, financially, are still up in the air.

philologos

I'm against it. Scotland should remain a part of the union as far as I see it. Scotland benefits economically from it's relationship with the rest of the UK, indeed, not just benefits, but is wholly dependant on it. I wouldn't anticipate it weathering too well through an economic crisis on its own.

I have doubts that most people in Scotland even want it.

David Cameron has played a good game on the subject this week I think, putting pressure on Alex Salmond to agree on a date within 18 months rather than constantly putting it off. It seems that Salmond may be afraid that he won't get the result he likes and as a result the subject wouldn't appear again for at least a decade.

Dyr

philologos wrote: »

It seems that Salmond may be afraid that he won't get the result he likes and as a result the subject wouldn't appear again for at least a decade.

Why wait a decade? just make them vote till they give the right answer, like our euroshills do.:)

LETHAL LADY

Aye wee ken.

philologos

If they fail (I.E If Scotland doesn't achieve a majority of people to support independence) Westminster won't be as receptive to permitting such a request in the future. I think he should just do the referendum and get it over with on Cameron's terms even if it is just to have advisory status.

I'm also sure you know that referenda cost money and that it won't be as easily justified every few years.

I personally think the UK is better off united rather than separated.

charlemont wrote: »

It would have a large voter turnout and its opponents would also turn out in large numbers but a Yes vote would be the most likely outcome and a lot of undecided voters would follow their hearts and vote Yes.

I agree with KeithAFC even if I disagree with a lot of his other views. You definitely wouldn't get a majority vote in the Republic given the economic climate. You would be mad to support reunification when there is economic difficulties. Look to the history of German reunification in the 90's.

getz

bnt wrote: »

I'm originally from Scotland, though I haven't lived there for many years. I have mixed feelings about this because the notion of "independence" is a confusing one these days.

There are different possible scenarios: for example, what if Scotland left the UK then joined the Eurozone? As things stand, they would be joining a single currency, with agreements about how they're supposed to run their economy. Like Ireland, they would be free to set their own tax rates and social spending policies, for example. Or they could try the same thing with Sterling. That model (monetary union with fiscal independence) has some serious questions hanging over it, to put it politely.

The way some commentators in the UK are talking, they make it sounds as if they'd be rebuilding Hadrian's Wall, putting in customs and immigration checks, separate currencies, and so on. A more likely scenario would be like Belgium and the Netherlands are: they are independent countries, with their own policies, but there is no real border. People live in one country and work in the other, just a normal commute. But the big questions of how it would work, financially, are still up in the air.

what the SNP are doing is now damaging their economy,big business is no longer looking to invest north of the border,westminster is also reluctant to invest long term, on moving to independance scotland would lose jobs , the UK spends and employs more goverment workers than northern ireland and wales,military bases would be moved and large towns and services that depend on them would close, as foreign citizens scotland would have to have its own passports police and army ,but i think this will never happen as the economy and jobs starts to collapse from the lack of investment ,realism will kick in.

Up Yer Kilt!

getz

Deleted User wrote: »

Up Yer Kilt!

i vote to kick the scots out of blackpool,or charge them more when they come on holidays,that will teach em

ArphaRima

The platforms are mostly quite some distance from the land; rights to them would not be clearly Scottish.
Quite why the English would allow the Scots to take the oil platforms with any new state is beyond me.

If I was British I would oppose their leaving, but would allow the Scots to self-determine, making clear that the oil stays within the union. That would split the vote nicely.

LordSutch

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

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

I totally disagree. Watching Question Time on Thursday night and this very point was brought up, and the consensus seemed to be that having three questions would really muddy the waters!!! For example, just say Salmond secured 40% of the vote in favour of breaking the Union, with 35% wanting DevoMax, and then 25% ticking the "keep the Union box". This result would see Scotland leave the United Kingdom, while leaving the combined DevoMax & Keep the Union voters (in a winning position), but with a split vote!

Three options would be a disaster, so I think Salmond should be denied his three option scheme. Two options is all thats required for clarity.

Option 1 - Scotland to stay in the UK.
Option 2 - Scotland to leave the UK.

petethebrick

Fear Uladh wrote: »

Whatever the people want to be honest.

I would love to see how scotland govern themselves after independence, would they join the euro or keep the sterling?

They would have to join the Euro. First off they would have to reapply for EU membership being a new state. And EU rules state that all new members must apply to join the euro.

fluffer

fluffer wrote: »

The platforms are mostly quite some distance from the land; rights to them would not be clearly Scottish.
Quite why the English would allow the Scots to take the oil platforms with any new state is beyond me.

If I was British I would oppose their leaving, but would allow the Scots to self-determine, making clear that the oil stays within the union. That would split the vote nicely.

The north sea is in rapid decline and has only a decade or so of viable production left, given that any move to full independence will take at least a decade to complete.

It is not such an issue as it would have been a few years ago!

KeithAFC

petethebrick wrote: »

They would have to join the Euro. First off they would have to reapply for EU membership being a new state. And EU rules state that all new members must apply to join the euro.

This is why it will not happen. The Euro will most likely collapse over the course of 2 years. Joining the EU (which is not popular) and the euro as a currency? Not going to happen.

KeithAFC

KeithAFC wrote: »

This is why it will not happen. The Euro will most likely collapse over the course of 2 years. Joining the EU (which is not popular) and the euro as a currency? Not going to happen.

+1

A version of the (old)EEC will likely replace the EU and we'll just have a bloc of independent trading nations.