Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Would the rest of the UK survive a Scottish exit?
Options
Comments
-
Of course. The BBC have a good reputation for being fair and unbiased.Happyman42 wrote: »But not when they are being carried out by the BBC in NI of course.
On the main point, the significance of the Scottish referendum is the fact that it is taking place and the discomfort it causes all British unionists. It has and will undermine the more dogmatic adherents to the notion of an unmovable Britishness. It's nothing but a transitory construct in the scheme of things.
Who ever said national identity was stationary? I certainly haven't. Divergence of nationality and the creation of a Northern Irish identity is one of the key underlining principals against Irish unity. There is no monolithic Irish identity that will last forever.
When the referendum is defeated (and it will be) the notion of independence will be killed for another generation at least. Perhaps another 100 years before the question is raised again. Receiving a political mandate from the people will only strengthen the Union for the foreseeable future. I know this is hard for you but you have to be strong. :cool:Happyman42 wrote: »The Scottish Ref. serves to show the dogmatic & belligerent that 'Britishness' is just a construct and is nothing more than a transitory beneificial political alignment. There is nothing immutable about it.
That will be a good and worthwhile excercising of certain minds imo, whatever way the referendum goes.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »When the referendum is defeated (and it will be) the notion of independence will be killed for another generation at least. Perhaps another 100 years before the question is raised again. Receiving a political mandate from the people will only strengthen the Union. I know this is hard for you but you just have to be strong. :cool:
A referendum defeat is not going to kill the desire for more devolution to the Scottish government. Westminister will use a referendum defeat to justify doing nothing for Scotland and increase SNP votes. There seems to be no appetite to resolve the west lothian question or create a federal or composite monarchy things that would undermine the scottish independence movement. Even the optics are terrible for westminister, they don't seem to care at all about Scotland and the more austerity the more the SNP can play the good guys by doing things like the way the blocked third level fees.
I think an EU referendum is more likely to precipitate a break up of the UK than the Scottish referendum. I know we mostly get the English eurosceptic tabloids and UKIP coverage, but Scotland, NI and Wales are quite pro EU.
The only advantage the conservatives have is that they can set timetables and agendas. If the UK voted to leave the EU, it would strengthen the SNP and independence movement, so if the Scottish referendum followed a vote to leave the EU, I think it would swing the Scottish referendum. Scotland gone and rest out of the EU, would also leave NI in an awkward position, culturally, financially and politically.
It's all very speculative, but the UK could be the next political entity to disappear off the map. Or at least they're going to have to be massive political reforms.
Another question is which will have to give into regional seperatists movements demands first Spain or the UK?0 -
It's not going to kill the desire but it will cement nationalists position as a minority of the population and make it practically impossible to continue dialogue on the issue when the Union has been given a democratic mandate. The SNP simply won't be able to raise the issue and now that Labour aren't in government any more I can see them becoming the majority party in the Scottish parliament again come the next election. And Labour as we both know are pro-union so there will be no independence noise from them.Guyanachronism wrote: »A referendum defeat is not going to kill the desire for more devolution to the Scottish government. Westminister will use a referendum defeat to justify doing nothing for Scotland and increase SNP votes. There seems to be no appetite to resolve the west lothian question or create a federal or composite monarchy things that would undermine the scottish independence movement. Even the optics are terrible for westminister, they don't seem to care at all about Scotland and the more austerity the more the SNP can play the good guys by doing things like the way the blocked third level fees.
I think an EU referendum is more likely to precipitate a break up of the UK than the Scottish referendum. I know we mostly get the English eurosceptic tabloids and UKIP coverage, but Scotland, NI and Wales are quite pro EU.
The only advantage the conservatives have is that they can set timetables and agendas. If the UK voted to leave the EU, it would strengthen the SNP and independence movement, so if the Scottish referendum followed a vote to leave the EU, I think it would swing the Scottish referendum. Scotland gone and rest out of the EU, would also leave NI in an awkward position, culturally, financially and politically.
It's all very speculative, but the UK could be the next political entity to disappear off the map. Or at least they're going to have to be massive political reforms.
Another question is which will have to give into regional seperatists movements demands first Spain or the UK?
As for Britain leaving the EU. It's not going to happen either. Sure the tabloids like to make noise but when it comes down to it the British people will never vote to leave the EU. Even if they did, theoretically, there won't be separate referendums in the various nations of the UK. The UK will either stay or leave as one.
The UK. But neither will happen for at least 100 years. After that I can't predict.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »It's not going to kill the desire but it will cement nationalists position as a minority of the population and make it practically impossible to continue dialogue on the issue when the Union has been given a democratic mandate. The SNP simply won't be able to raise the issue and now that Labour aren't in government any more I can see them becoming the majority party in the Scottish parliament again come the next election. And Labour as we both know are pro-union so there will be no independence noise from them.
As for Britain leaving the EU. It's not going to happen either. Sure the tabloids like to make noise but when it comes down to it the British people will never vote to leave the EU. Even if they did, theoretically, there won't be separate referendums in the various nations of the UK. The UK will either stay or leave as one.
The UK. But neither will happen for at least 100 years. After that I can't predict.
You're just picking numbers out of a hat now. Where did this 100 years come from? You were saying 25 years a few posts ago. You have absolutely no idea what will happen in the event of a defeat of the referendum. I don;t think at this stage anyone can say with certainty what will happen, I would hazard that if it is defeated the margin of defeat would be the most important factor in regards to judging what would then happen.0 -
Depending on who is listening, like every other broadcaster.Iwasfrozen wrote: »Of course. The BBC have a good reputation for being fair and unbiased.Who ever said national identity was stationary? I certainly haven't. Divergence of nationality and the creation of a Northern Irish identity is one of the key underlining principals against Irish unity. There is no monolithic Irish identity that will last forever.
I love this cutesy idea that is doing the rounds of huge numbers seeing themselves as 'Northern Irish'. Really is a rather pathetic clutching at straws imo.When the referendum is defeated (and it will be) the notion of independence will be killed for another generation at least. Perhaps another 100 years before the question is raised again. Receiving a political mandate from the people will only strengthen the Union for the foreseeable future. I know this is hard for you but you have to be strong. :cool:
I have no opinion either way on the Scottish Referendum. If you can find one on here then you have a right to make a decision on how hard it is for me. Otherwise stay silent, it reveals a lot about you.0 -
Advertisement
-
There's no need to say if the referendum will be defeated. It will be. As for years as I said I'm not even going to try and predict past the foreseeable future.You're just picking numbers out of a hat now. Where did this 100 years come from? You were saying 25 years a few posts ago. You have absolutely no idea what will happen in the event of a defeat of the referendum. I don;t think at this stage anyone can say with certainty what will happen, I would hazard that if it is defeated the margin of defeat would be the most important factor in regards to judging what would then happen.0 -
Hence why we have regulators.Happyman42 wrote: »Depending on who is listening, like every other broadcaster.
Ignore what's plain before you all you want but it's happening trust me. This is no cause for alarm though. As you said yourself nationality is fluid and constantly in motion. You didn't expect the island of Ireland to always be politically and culturally united did you? It's human nature that out notion of identity and belonging to a particular tribe is constantly shifting. Ireland is not immune to this.I love this cutesy idea that is doing the rounds of huge numbers seeing themselves as 'Northern Irish'. Really is a rather pathetic clutching at straws imo.
Oh I'd say you do. You'd love if the referendum passed because it would make the break up of the union, and in turn a United Ireland, much more likely. Conversely a strong mandate for the maintenance of the Union from the Scottish people would give the Union a new vigour and ensure it's survival into the foreseeable future. Something you'd hate.I have no opinion either way on the Scottish Referendum. If you can find one on here then you have a right to make a decision on how hard it is for me. Otherwise stay silent, it reveals a lot about you.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »Hence why we have regulators.
Ignore what's plain before you all you want but it's happening trust me. This is no cause for alarm though. As you said yourself nationality is fluid and constantly in motion. You didn't expect the island of Ireland to always be politically and culturally united did you? It's human nature that out notion of identity and belonging to a particular tribe is constantly shifting. Ireland is not immune to this.
Oh I'd say you do. You'd love if the referendum passed because it would make the break up of the union, and in turn a United Ireland, much more likely. Conversely a strong mandate for the maintenance of the Union from the Scottish people would give the Union a new vigour and ensure it's survival into the foreseeable future. Something you'd hate.
Why are you to be trusted in this opinion when you are so quick to discount the opinion of actual residents? In almost 100 years of partition, the number who identify as Irish in the North has actually increased.
How also do you justify saying that the political will for a United Ireland is being diluted by a rising 'Northern Irish' identity? Surely there is no debate about a Scots identity being diluted, even if Scotland chooses to remain in the union. Why hold these two seemingly opposing points of view? Why in the case of Ireland is it being highlighted as an actual argument whilst being completely absent from the other?0 -
Have scotland not got a seperate parliment? I dont know but might be a good thing for scotland to be independent but not sure if it happen same applies to NI cant see it changing. If one becomes independent another follow suit.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
They identify as Northern Irish. A new breed of the Irish nationality distinct from the Southerners. As you said yourself nationality is never static and constantly evolving. Based on previous demographics regarding the rapid growth of this new nationality we can expect the Northern Irish identity to continue growing and evolving as Northern Ireland becomes a fixed entity within the UK. Obviously both conditions have to work together to make this happen.Why are you to be trusted in this opinion when you are so quick to discount the opinion of actual residents? In almost 100 years of partition, the number who identify as Irish in the North has actually increased.
How also do you justify saying that the political will for a United Ireland is being diluted by a rising 'Northern Irish' identity? Surely there is no debate about a Scots identity being diluted, even if Scotland chooses to remain in the union. Why hold these two seemingly opposing points of view? Why in the case of Ireland is it being highlighted as an actual argument whilst being completely absent from the other?
If Scotland chooses partition as a solution to their independence problem fine by me. I'm not Scottish, it's none of my business but I will support their decision.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »They identify as Northern Irish. A new breed of the Irish nationality distinct from the Southerners. As you said yourself nationality is never static and constantly evolving. Based on previous demographics regarding the rapid growth of this new nationality we can expect the Northern Irish identity to continue growing and evolving as Northern Ireland becomes a fixed entity within the UK. Obviously both conditions have to work together to make this happen.
If Scotland chooses partition as a solution to their independence problem fine by me. I'm not Scottish, it's none of my business but I will support their decision.
Firstly I didn't say that. Also, if a Union with Great Britain has't been able to become fixed in almost a century I'd say there was a problem. It's fine to spout rhetoric about this amazing new identity that is supposedly flowering but you present no evidence at all other than a biased opinion.
I happen to agree with you about Scotland, I do not think that the referendum will pass, however I also do not think the independence movement will roll over and die for 4 generations if they do not win.
'If' Scotland did leave the union, then that would be a game changer and it of course would have massive repercussions for the North.0 -
I have lived here (the border with Northern Ireland) for nigh on 50 yrs and never have I heard anyone refer to themselves as Northern Irish in the way that you mean. It's another clutching construct.Iwasfrozen wrote: »
Ignore what's plain before you all you want but it's happening trust me. This is no cause for alarm though. As you said yourself nationality is fluid and constantly in motion. You didn't expect the island of Ireland to always be politically and culturally united did you? It's human nature that out notion of identity and belonging to a particular tribe is constantly shifting. Ireland is not immune to this.
When you know my opinion on the Scottish Ref, feel free to comment on it.Oh I'd say you do. You'd love if the referendum passed because it would make the break up of the union, and in turn a United Ireland, much more likely. Conversely a strong mandate for the maintenance of the Union from the Scottish people would give the Union a new vigour and ensure it's survival into the foreseeable future. Something you'd hate.
I am looking forward to the debate and I can be swayed either way.
Please don't tell me what I might or might not 'hate'. It makes you sound like a teenager. (maybe you are one, in which case, get back to me when you grow up a tad)0 -
This thread has lost its focus.
Most people outside of NI don't really care about NI, its all about England specifically the North.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »I have lived here (the border with Northern Ireland) for nigh on 50 yrs and never have I heard anyone refer to themselves as Northern Irish in the way that you mean. It's another clutching construct.
Yep. I'm from there and a regular visitor and I've never heard anyone describe themselves as 'Northern Irish' and certainly not anyone in my extended family who see themselves as Irish and Irish only.0 -
absolutely.0
-
Charlie Rock wrote: »Yep. I'm from there and a regular visitor and I've never heard anyone describe themselves as 'Northern Irish' and certainly not anyone in my extended family who see themselves as Irish and Irish only.
It's quite bewildering as to where this invention is coming from, It's like the Ulster-Scots heritage that emerged a few years ago, where did that come from?
As the rest of 'Britain' has clearly turned it's face with the signing of the GFA, it's anything but be seen as Irish it seems. Sad in many ways.
Looking forward to a less fearful and mature debate over Scottish issues tbh. The Unionists here are scared of even the debate, it will be good to see how many it will calm down. I think a lot of moderates will shift their attitudes.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »The Unionists here are scared of even the debate
And that's exactly why Unionists in north will not call SF's bluff on a border poll. It's very likely a no vote would be returned but Unionists are very aware once the debate begins it starts to give the idea of unification vividness and afaia the poll must be taken every seven years from then on.
Unionists are probably also afraid that those bankrolling the north in London/England would be very receptive and supportive of unification which is hard for Unionists to swallow.0 -
Happyman42 wrote: »The Unionists here are scared of even the debate, it will be good to see how many it will calm down. I think a lot of moderates will shift their attitudes.
There isn't any debate here - there is a one sided mono-mania which never ceases about a UI from people who frequently seem to hate the RoI more than many Unionists do.
As for shifting position, the latest opinion poll in the BT points to a shift away from the concept.0 -
I'd agree.Charlie Rock wrote: »And that's exactly why Unionists in north will not call SF's bluff on a border poll. It's very likely a no vote would be returned but Unionists are very aware once the debate begins it starts to give the idea of unification vividness and afaia the poll must be taken every seven years from then on.
Unionists are probably also afraid that those bankrolling the north in London/England would be very receptive and supportive of unification which is hard for Unionists to swallow.
Unionists are scared to enter into anything that might lead them to have to put cards on the table, have questions asked of them and have to debate everything point by point and dragged away from their rhetoric. We as republicans know that it's probably unlikely we'll win this but to get an open debate that unionists can't run away and hide from is what's needed.
The British government will also have to reveal exactly what they take out and put into the north, and it's nothing like the £10bn that's thrown around by unionists it's £2bn at the most. I've said on this before the the German reunification is the best example of what can lie ahead on the path and their economy and systems were a lot further apart than what ours are.
Personally when heading over the border and into border regions it's the simple things that instantly annoy me the most like mobile phone roaming charges, currency and speed limits in mph. My car doesn't have mph on the dash as it's relatively new and just has kmph. These are just 3 very simple and basic day to day things that impact on people personally, impact on business and impact on transport.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
It didn't get a chance to become fixed due to the troubles. But now things are settling down people's attitudes and stances are becoming less fixed and ethnic Irish catholics no longer feel and undue onus to aspire to a United Ireland when a United Kingdom meets all their democratic needs.Firstly I didn't say that. Also, if a Union with Great Britain has't been able to become fixed in almost a century I'd say there was a problem. It's fine to spout rhetoric about this amazing new identity that is supposedly flowering but you present no evidence at all other than a biased opinion.
It will. Because anyone who brings up the prospect of greater autonomy will be shouted down as being anti democratic or against the will of the people. The pro union parties have a lot of money and some serious brain power behind their marketing campaigns. Give them a democratic mandate and you can forget about any sort of real debate.I happen to agree with you about Scotland, I do not think that the referendum will pass, however I also do not think the independence movement will roll over and die for 4 generations if they do not win.
So do I though I'm not quite as old as you. Perhaps you're out of touch? You did admit it was a modern phenomenon. Either way the numbers don't lie.Happyman42 wrote: »I have lived here (the border with Northern Ireland) for nigh on 50 yrs and never have I heard anyone refer to themselves as Northern Irish in the way that you mean. It's another clutching construct.
Oh I know you would hate a strong UK. It's your worst nightmare because it would make it harder to achieve your United Ireland.Happyman42 wrote: »When you know my opinion on the Scottish Ref, feel free to comment on it.
I am looking forward to the debate and I can be swayed either way.
Please don't tell me what I might or might not 'hate'. It makes you sound like a teenager. (maybe you are one, in which case, get back to me when you grow up a tad)0 -
What a ridiculous argument. We might as well unify the whole of the British isles because crossing a border is inconvenient for Hannibal.Personally when heading over the border and into border regions it's the simple things that instantly annoy me the most like mobile phone roaming charges, currency and speed limits in mph. My car doesn't have mph on the dash as it's relatively new and just has kmph. These are just 3 very simple and basic day to day things that impact on people personally, impact on business and impact on transport.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »What a ridiculous argument. We might as well unify the whole of the British isles because crossing a border is inconvenient for Hannibal.
Well I brought my car with me when I immigrated from England so the scale is in mph with tiny (I mean tiny) metric scales on the inside. I can manage.
Anyway here is a guide
60mph approx 100kph
70mph approx 115kph
30mph approx 50kph
20mph approx 30kph
Why its almost the same as the Republic limits just slightly slower on Motorways0 -
I'd agree.
Unionists are scared to enter into anything that might lead them to have to put cards on the table, have questions asked of them and have to debate everything point by point and dragged away from their rhetoric. We as republicans know that it's probably unlikely we'll win this but to get an open debate that unionists can't run away and hide from is what's needed.
The British government will also have to reveal exactly what they take out and put into the north, and it's nothing like the £10bn that's thrown around by unionists it's £2bn at the most. I've said on this before the the German reunification is the best example of what can lie ahead on the path and their economy and systems were a lot further apart than what ours are.
Personally when heading over the border and into border regions it's the simple things that instantly annoy me the most like mobile phone roaming charges, currency and speed limits in mph. My car doesn't have mph on the dash as it's relatively new and just has kmph. These are just 3 very simple and basic day to day things that impact on people personally, impact on business and impact on transport.
Three reasons why Scotland should vote no then!
You blame unionists for not entering in to a debate, but the republican reasons for unification are, like Salmond's reasons for independence, pretty much fluffy bunny land rhetoric.
Anyone who finds fault with the somewhat thin proposals are just written off as unpatriotic or a unionist.0 -
I work in the community on both sides of the border and my work takes me into contact with the full age spectrum and involves discussing and creating things around all of these issues and NOT ONCE have I heard anyone refer to themselves as 'Northern Irish'.Iwasfrozen wrote: »
So do I though I'm not quite as old as you. Perhaps you're out of touch? You did admit it was a modern phenomenon. Either way the numbers don't lie.
You may fool some on here who aren't on the ground but that wouldn't be the first time people from the republic have been fooled by Unionist spin.Oh I know you would hate a strong UK. It's your worst nightmare because it would make it harder to achieve your United Ireland.
Since Britain said in the GFA that, we the Irish have the right to self determine, there has been a growing fear and realisation in the Unionist community about what that ACTUALLY means. You are one of those so insecure about your identity that you cannot bring yourself to admit that all the alleigance, all the sarcrifice, all the bending over in order to be accepted, by those you admire has been thrown back in your face, as it has been in countless colonies around the globe.
Essentially you are on your own now, etnically and culturally homeless.
The crossroads are in front of you but you and others like you(they can be seen at the belligerent and hostile marches and flag protests)cling to the notion that you are on a straight road.
Instead of inventing stuff, I see what is actually in front of me...a growing moderate community within Unionism which has realised the above and has the maturity to consider what their options now are.
The Scottish debate and referendum will help them to consider those options in the abscence of any direction and genuine concern about the future from their political leaders. (who try again and again to get the Unionist masses onto the streets over petty issues like Flags and marches)
In that sense the Scottish Ref. is a good thing. What it means for Scottish people and the UK, I have no idea, I will wait and listen rationally to the debate, NOT dig myself into a hidebound hole, covering my eyes and ears.0 -
Iwasfrozen wrote: »It didn't get a chance to become fixed due to the troubles. But now things are settling down people's attitudes and stances are becoming less fixed and ethnic Irish catholics no longer feel and undue onus to aspire to a United Ireland when a United Kingdom meets all their democratic needs.
This argument does not stand and is essentially empty rhetoric. Why did this not happen between partition and the late 1960's?It will. Because anyone who brings up the prospect of greater autonomy will be shouted down as being anti democratic or against the will of the people. The pro union parties have a lot of money and some serious brain power behind their marketing campaigns. Give them a democratic mandate and you can forget about any sort of real debate.
Democratic mandates do not stop debates nor minority will. When the referendum happens in Scotland it will be the first volley in a metaphorical war and Pandora's box will have been opened. It will be a monumental poll and the first of it's kind in Britain. It could well spread debate outside Scotland rather than stifle it.Fratton Fred wrote:You blame unionists for not entering in to a debate, but the republican reasons for unification are, like Salmond's reasons for independence, pretty much fluffy bunny land rhetoric.
Hold on a second fellas. It's not rhetoric, fluffy bunny land variety or otherwise for an Irishman in the North or a Scotsman or even an Englishman to value independence from the union. It's a perfectly valid point of view, the same can be said for valuing the idea of having a Republic, isn't the UK Republican party becoming more prominent? The Greens stand on a Republican platform do they not. A minority view it may be now but still a perfectly valid one.0 -
Hold on a second fellas. It's not rhetoric, fluffy bunny land variety or otherwise for an Irishman in the North or a Scotsman or even an Englishman to value independence from the union. It's a perfectly valid point of view, the same can be said for valuing the idea of having a Republic, isn't the UK Republican party becoming more prominent? The Greens stand on a Republican platform do they not. A minority view it may be now but still a perfectly valid one.
Unless you are able to substantiate the advantages of doing so, then it is little more than rhetoric.
You can't have a debate when your only argument is "because it would be nice".0 -
Fratton Fred wrote: »Unless you are able to substantiate the advantages of doing so, then it is little more than rhetoric.
You can't have a debate when your only argument is "because it would be nice".
I'm not involved in those debates Fred but I'm sure if I looked into the manifesto of any of the UK Republican parties it would be a little more substantial that what you paint it.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not involved in those debates Fred but I'm sure if I looked into the manifesto of any of the UK Republican parties it would be a little more substantial that what you paint it.
I'm not interested in UK republican manifestos, the accusation was that unionists fail to debate a United Ireland (which could be a valid comment) but I've yet to see a valid reason from the other side that can be debated.
Sure, republicanism is a valid political theory (although often used to hide an extreme socialist agenda in my experience) but not that relevant to this debate.
The SNP, incidentally, are not a republican party.0
Advertisement