Scottish independence

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

They were wrong in that the SNP and Sinn Fein are not sister parties.

In what way is the square’s name an English creation?

In no way. George Square was developed by the Scottish builder and property developer James Brown in the 1770s. He named it not after the then monarch King George III, but after his own older brother George Brown, who was Laird of Lindsaylands, and a leading figure in Edinburgh society. (He also developed the now-demolished Brown Square.)

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

In no way. George Square was developed by the Scottish builder and property developer James Brown in the 1770s. He named it not after the then monarch King George III, but after his own older brother George Brown, who was Laird of Lindsaylands, and a leading figure in Edinburgh society. (He also developed the now-demolished Brown Square.)

It depends if it is the Edinburgh one, or the Glasgee one I guess.

Either way, the poster (who appears to have fallen off the face of the earth ) seems to think anything with the name George must be English.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

It depends if it is the Edinburgh one, or the Glasgee one I guess.

Either way, the poster (who appears to have fallen off the face of the earth ) seems to think anything with the name George must be English.

But of a sidetrack, but it's interesting that the Brown family had one son that they named George, born in 1722 and given the name of the reigning Hanoverian monarch George I, and a second son James, born in 1729 and given the name of the Stuart pretender to the same throne. Perhaps they were hedging their bets?

serfboard

Peregrinus wrote: »

George Square was developed by the Scottish builder and property developer James Brown in the 1770s. He named it not after the then monarch King George III, but after his own older brother George Brown

You'd better correct Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:

George's square, as it was known initially, was named after King George III

Fair enough, says you, 'tis only Wikipedia. But the part where this is stated references this article:

Irene Maver wrote:

George Square was patriotically named after King George III

The author, Irene Maver, "was born and grew up in Glasgow. She is currently a lecturer in Scottish history at Glasgow University". Maybe she's wrong and you're right?

Peregrinus

serfboard wrote: »

You'd better correct Wikipedia:

Fair enough, says you, 'tis only Wikipedia. But the part where this is stated references this article:

The author, Irene Maver, "was born and grew up in Glasgow. She is currently a lecturer in Scottish history at Glasgow University". Maybe she's wrong and you're right?

Maybe I'm talking about George Square in Edinburgh?

serfboard

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe I'm talking about George Square in Edinburgh?

Fair enough - but was the original reference not to George Square in Glasgow?

Peregrinus

serfboard wrote: »

Fair enough - but was the original reference not to George Square in Glasgow?

The original post with the reference to George Square seems to have disappeared. I must admit I assumed that George Square in Edinburgh was intended. I may have been wrong.

Mr.Nice Guy

54% of Scots in favour of independence, according to latest Panelbase poll.

https://twitter.com/SunScotNational/status/1274438622641631234

Considering how the Tories have performed, I'm surprised 46% of people would want to retain the status quo.

I wonder how Sturgeon and the SNP will plot the years ahead. Do they push for a poll in the next year or two, or continue to bide their time in the hope that the numbers for Yes will head up towards 60%?

Water John

The split between the UK and the other three dominions on Covid 19 may be having more of an effect than Brexit?

BonnieSituation

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

54% of Scots in favour of independence, according to latest Panelbase poll.

https://twitter.com/SunScotNational/status/1274438622641631234

Considering how the Tories have performed, I'm surprised 46% of people would want to retain the status quo.

I wonder how Sturgeon and the SNP will plot the years ahead. Do they push for a poll in the next year or two, or continue to bide their time in the hope that the numbers for Yes will head up towards 60%?

The next Holyrood elections will be the starting pistol.

The SNP will campaign on getting another referendum if they get an independence majority in parliament.

pixelburp

You'd have to speculate where that number is ultimately going to go: is it just a frustrated bump that'll settle back to 50-50 or will become the new baseline.

Post CoVid and Brexit proper still has to happen and those are the economic tea leaves. If London makes a total hash of it juggling 2 national catastrophes, it may drive more Scots to self determination.

eire4

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The next Holyrood elections will be the starting pistol.

The SNP will campaign on getting another referendum if they get an independence majority in parliament.

Tend to think your right there. May 2021 is the next Scottish assembly elections. By that point we will be 5 months past the end of the transition period of the UK's departure from the EU. At this point it looks quite likely there will be no trade deal in place for January 1 2021 and the continued hardline stance from London against a second Scottish independence referendum all IMHO only increase support for a yes vote.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

If Scotland leaves the UK it will be to leave the UK, just as in our own case. Sovereign independence is normally a goal in itself; it does not have to be a means to some other policy objective.

The point of gaining sovereign independence would be to use it to do something. Scotland leaving the UK without a plan would be as stupid as the UK leaving the EU without one.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The point of gaining sovereign independence would be to use it to do something. Scotland leaving the UK without a plan would be as stupid as the UK leaving the EU without one.

What did Ireland leave the UK to do?

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

What did Ireland leave the UK to do?

Pearse and DeValera stuff mostly. The world was somewhat different in 1921.

Fr Tod Umptious

First Up wrote: »

The point of gaining sovereign independence would be to use it to do something. Scotland leaving the UK without a plan would be as stupid as the UK leaving the EU without one.

I remember reading here or somewhere else that looking for independence for economic reasons is rarely a successful endeavor.

Independence is more often sought-after for more altruistic, principled goals.

Because of some sort of difference (tribal, ethnic, religious whatever) or because of some perception of mistreatment and a disire to self determination.

Looking to leave the UK just to join the EU may not be enough of a reason to turn voters.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Pearse and DeValera stuff mostly. The world was somewhat different in 1921.

I find this answer unconvincing.

If you want more contemporary examples, what did Slovakia and Czechia separate from one another to do in 1993? What did Slovenia leave Yugoslavia to do in 1991?

I'm at a loss to see why among the nations of the earth Scotland, and Scotland alone, is not allowed to aspire to sovereign independence as a desireable thing in itself. This is a common aspiration and has been for a long time, and I do not see why you think the Scots could not possibly share it.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

If you want more contemporary examples, what did Slovakia and Czechia separate from one another to do in 1993? What did Slovenia leave Yugoslavia to do in 1991?

Slovenia left Yougoslavia to rejoin western europe (and the EU) as the artificial Yougoslav state was on the brink of collapse and ethnic conflict.

Czechoslovakia was an artificial construct anyway; both parts were happy to return to their historic independent roots as Eastern Europe emerged from communism.

Neither is really comparable to Ireland gaining independence in a fragmented Europe after WW1.

Peregrinus wrote:

I'm at a loss to see why among the nations of the earth Scotland, and Scotland alone, is not allowed to aspire to sovereign independence as a desireable thing in itself. This is a common aspiration and has been for a long time, and I do not see why you think the Scots could not possibly share it.

Of course Scotland is entitled to aspire to independence. But if they are leaving the sanctuary and stability of the UK, they would be wise to know how they plan to use it.

First Up

First Up wrote:

Of course Scotland is entitled to aspire to independence. But if they are leaving the sanctuary and stability of the UK, they would be wise to know how they plan to use it.

Which I am sure they do and I am also sure that includes EU membership.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Of course Scotland is entitled to aspire to independence. But if they are leaving the sanctuary and stability of the UK, they would be wise to know how they plan to use it.

Of course. But planning to join the EU is not the same as aspiring to independence in order to join the EU. The Scots might reasonably aspire to independence in order to be able to make their own decision about that, and about lots of other things, and also in order not to be beholdend to decisions made by an increasingly dysfunctional UK.

It's absurd to say that "If Scotland leaves the UK, it will be to join the EU. No other reason makes sense." Scotland can have lots of reasons for leaving the UK that make sense. Joining the EU doesn't even have to be one of them.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

It's absurd to say that "If Scotland leaves the UK, it will be to join the EU. No other reason makes sense." Scotland can have lots of reasons for leaving the UK that make sense. Joining the EU doesn't even have to be one of them.

Fair enough; Scotland has a cultural identity, some social differences and other things that make it different to England. But it already has its own parliament and enough autonomy to allow it make a lot of it's own decisions.

But being dragged out of the EU (and as a consequence into even closer ties with England) is what has revived the independence issue and would very likely see it pass next time.

And the EU's door will be open, but Scotland would still have to meet the entry requirements - including the Euro.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Of course. But planning to join the EU is not the same as aspiring to independence in order to join the EU. The Scots might reasonably aspire to independence in order to be able to make their own decision about that, and about lots of other things, and also in order not to be beholdend to decisions made by an increasingly dysfunctional UK.

It's absurd to say that "If Scotland leaves the UK, it will be to join the EU. No other reason makes sense." Scotland can have lots of reasons for leaving the UK that make sense. Joining the EU doesn't even have to be one of them.

If Brexit didn't exist, how much support would there be for Scottish independence today?

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If Brexit didn't exist, how much support would there be for Scottish independence today?

Well, a major plank in the NO vote in the Indyref was that the new independent Scotland would be ejected from the EU. In the /Brexit referendum, Scotland voted strongly for EU membership, which would suggest the EU membership was a decisive factor in the Indyref.

Much of the Indyref was fought on dubious grounds, but not as much as the Brexit votes where facts and experts were discounted by the LEAVE campaign.

The YES campaign tried to isolate the UK pound from the argument, and that the Queen of England would remain as Queen of Scotland. Whether either were actually important is a moot point, but could become an issue after independence.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, a major plank in the NO vote in the Indyref was that the new independent Scotland would be ejected from the EU. In the /Brexit referendum, Scotland voted strongly for EU membership, which would suggest the EU membership was a decisive factor in the Indyref.

Much of the Indyref was fought on dubious grounds, but not as much as the Brexit votes where facts and experts were discounted by the LEAVE campaign.

The YES campaign tried to isolate the UK pound from the argument, and that the Queen of England would remain as Queen of Scotland. Whether either were actually important is a moot point, but could become an issue after independence.

I think that independence arguments seem to have become much clearer since 2016. Economically, pandemic aside, Scotland will take a serious cold shower if it becomes independent. But that's going to happen anyway with Brexit. Plus there isn't the same toxic form of nationalism that pervades swathes of English society.

I remember reading an article some years ago in The Economist which argued, quite persuasively, that Scottish people's sense of identity was built around not being English. Many Scots are now appalled at what is happening in the HoC in recent years and how this Tory government has swung even further right and is disregarding Scotland's voice. The pandemic has emphasised this.

So I think that there are elements of wanting to be seen as an independent nation, to be part of the EU project and to not want to be part of a country that is now being run by elitist right wing English populists. Brexit has dominated British English politics for five years now. In doing so, it has created and encapsulated many of the reasons why Scotland may no longer want to be part of the UK today. That's why I think Brexit is the defining factor in the increase in support for Scottish independence.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think that independence arguments seem to have become much clearer since 2016. Economically, pandemic aside, Scotland will take a serious cold shower if it becomes independent. But that's going to happen anyway with Brexit. Plus there isn't the same toxic form of nationalism that pervades swathes of English society.

I remember reading an article some years ago in The Economist which argued, quite persuasively, that Scottish people's sense of identity was built around not being English. Many Scots are now appalled at what is happening in the HoC in recent years and how this Tory government has swung even further right and is disregarding Scotland's voice. The pandemic has emphasised this.

So I think that there are elements of wanting to be seen as an independent nation, to be part of the EU project and to not want to be part of a country that is now being run by elitist right wing English populists. Brexit has dominated British English politics for five years now. In doing so, it has created and encapsulated many of the reasons why Scotland may no longer want to be part of the UK today. That's why I think Brexit is the defining factor in the increase in support for Scottish independence.

I agree with this except the bit about Scotland only see themselves as 'not English'. They have a as great a sense of their Sottishness as we have of our Irishness. They have a defenite realisation that they have a culture and tradition that is theirs and it is a genuine expression of the nationality.

Unfortunately, there has been a significant number of English immigrants that see Scotland as English British, and that Scottish nationalism is a tiny minority of weirdos.

They want independence for themselves to be themselves, not to be not-something-else. If it takes them into the EU, they want to be themselves that, not some foreign parliament in London.

First Up

A poll in the Glasgow Herald this week put support for independence at 54%. I had expected it to be higher so its obviously a very complex issue.

In my experience (I lived there for a bit) Scots are comfortable with their own identity but are also comfortable being British. Some will be disgusted at being dragged out of the EU but others might seek sanctuary in a "fortress Britain". Many younger Scots will be in the former camp; older Scots (and retired English living there) may be in the latter.

It is for the UK to sort for itself. The EU will be careful not to interfere and will play it carefully and by the book.

Interesting times.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: I've moved the Scottish independence posts to the relevant thread.

briany

First Up wrote: »

Of course Scotland is entitled to aspire to independence. But if they are leaving the sanctuary and stability of the UK, they would be wise to know how they plan to use it.

:pac:

They say people change when the pain of change is outweighed by the pain of staying the same. Given that the UK looks set to crash out of the EU and become a geographically-isolated trading entity, and given that Westminster's handling of the Coronavirus leading to the highest death toll in Europe and demonstrates their utter ineptitude in handling a large crisis, just how the hell could a sane Scottish person look upon staying in the UK as sanctuary and stability? Westminster has completely lost that argument by taking their current Kamikaze approach. England appears to be going off the deep end as blinkered nationalism has the UK set to drive off an economic cliff. It's clear now that the economic and foreign policies of Scotland and England are on two separate paths and if they continue with that, the political split is only a matter of time.

First Up

briany wrote:

They say people change when the pain of change is outweighed by the pain of staying the same. Given that the UK looks set to crash out of the EU and become a geographically-isolated trading entity, and given that Westminster's handling of the Coronavirus leading to the highest death toll in Europe and demonstrates their utter ineptitude in handling a large crisis, just how the hell could a sane Scottish person look upon staying in the UK as sanctuary and stability? Westminster has completely lost that argument by taking their current Kamikaze approach. England appears to be going off the deep end as blinkered nationalism has the UK set to drive off an economic cliff. It's clear now that the economic and foreign policies of Scotland and England are on two separate paths and if they continue with that, the political split is only a matter of time.

Yes but the older people get, the less inclined they are to embrace change. Scotland does 60+% of its business with England; some people just want to stick with what they know. They will see and feel leaving the UK as a much more visible issue than leaving the EU.

Scotland voting for independence last time while within the EU would have been crazy. Much less crazy now and a few years of fortress Britain could make joining the EU as an independent nation very attractive.

But the complications and challenges shouldn't be underestimated.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

Slovenia left Yougoslavia to rejoin western europe (and the EU) as the artificial Yougoslav state was on the brink of collapse and ethnic conflict.

Czechoslovakia was an artificial construct anyway; both parts were happy to return to their historic independent roots as Eastern Europe emerged from communism.

Neither is really comparable to Ireland gaining independence in a fragmented Europe after WW1.



Of course Scotland is entitled to aspire to independence. But if they are leaving the sanctuary and stability of the UK, they would be wise to know how they plan to use it.

What's this obsession with labeling different states as "artificial"?

Yugoslavia began the slow break up after Tito died and the Serbs tried to throw their weight around (obviously there's more to it) but Yugoslavia was no more "artificial" than any of the numerous border changes in Europe in the 20th century after WW1.

What makes the UK less artificial that Scotland can't have a legitimate "independence for independence sake" aspiration like some of Ireland achieved?

The UK only existed on foot of the Scottish Darrien mess really.

Even then we were a separate Kingdom with a separate parliament.

Then we "joined" in 1801 after some coercion.

As I'm sure you're aware a few things happened throughout the 19th century that made a lot of us less than enamoured with London-rule.

And part of the country left the UK in 1922.

So the UK as it stands is a pretty young State in its current composition. It's as artificial and as real as any State. Though, really continues to only exist through coercion and the dominance of one constituent country over the others.