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

Scottish independence

Options
17172747677117

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    You do realise that the EU is a group of humans essentially with human thoughts and emotions?

    How could you possibly counter that there wouldn't be some schadenfreude at the break up of the UK on foot of Brexit? It would be impossible not to laugh at it.

    At an individual level, of course. At an institutional and political level, its just a headache.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    First Up wrote: »
    At an individual level, of course. At an institutional and political level, its just a headache.

    It'll still seep in. You can see it already with how they are not really hiding their exasperation anymore.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Why is it always forgotten that this fabled "stability" that Britain supposedly has has included in the 20th century alone:

    - Two civil wars and multiple wars and insurrections
    - Part of its territory leaving
    - A peace accord with another nation to guarantee equality for its citizens because it failed to do so itself
    - State forces murdering its own citizens

    And so on...

    Or is it because it was Ireland that doesn't count as being "theirs" problem.

    How many violent and fatal riots as well?

    Official UK likes to portray itself and some sort of beacon of stability. Anyone with a lick of sense knows it's anything but.

    Too right Scotland wants to leave.

    That’s a complete red herring though, based on your own views.

    You may as well say that Ireland likes to portray itself as a bastion of civil rights and equality when in reality, it’s mired with political corruption, child abuse and financial incompetence, no wonder Cork wants independence.

    The reality is, Scotland is very much front and centre of official UK, just as Cork is very much part of official Ireland.

    You can try and paint this as a poor Celtic nation being subjugated by the big bad Saxon foe as much as you like, but that really is not reality.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,027 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    The fact that it's still a union makes it far more stable than if Scotland were to leave.

    In what way is the UK a union?


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    SNIP. No snarky comments.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    In what way is the UK a union?

    it is a union of countries

    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/union
    2. UNCOUNTABLE NOUN
    When the union of two or more things occurs, they are joined together and become one thing.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Would it not be opposite without Scotland Tories would have an unassailable majority and you endup with a de facto one party authoritarian state, Beijing on Thames

    No.

    Labour would still have won the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections had England been an independent country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Aegir wrote: »
    That’s a complete red herring though, based on your own views.

    You may as well say that Ireland likes to portray itself as a bastion of civil rights and equality when in reality, it’s mired with political corruption, child abuse and financial incompetence, no wonder Cork wants independence.

    The reality is, Scotland is very much front and centre of official UK, just as Cork is very much part of official Ireland.

    You can try and paint this as a poor Celtic nation being subjugated by the big bad Saxon foe as much as you like, but that really is not reality.

    A rather bitter comment about Ireland.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    A rather bitter comment about Ireland.

    an exaggeration used for the purposes of example.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Aegir wrote: »
    an exaggeration used for the purposes of example.

    Well, relatively speaking, "in reality" modern Ireland is not "mired" in the things you say. And I would consider modern Ireland to have enough civil rights and to be a relatively equal society.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Well, relatively speaking, "in reality" modern Ireland is not "mired" in the things you say. And I would consider modern Ireland to have enough civil rights and to be a relatively equal society.

    I guess that is open to a different discussion and not really relevant to this thread.

    Bonnie was referring to something that happened fifty years ago and relating it to Scotland wishing to leave the UK as if it is relevant today, or at least relevant to Scottish independence, which of course it is not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Aegir wrote: »
    I guess that is open to a different discussion and not really relevant to this thread.

    Bonnie was referring to something that happened fifty years ago and relating it to Scotland wishing to leave the UK as if it is relevant today, or at least relevant to Scottish independence, which of course it is not.

    Fair enough, I hadn't read that discussion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Fair enough, I hadn't read that discussion.

    Neither has he if that's what he took from it.

    I was referring to the fabled stability of the UK and how some like First Up keep harping on about how Scotland leaving is a destabilising event and as such they should stay put. I was pointing out that it's codswallop.

    That being said, Ballymurphy being 50 years ago is neither there now there. It happened and is a scar on the endless scar tissue of Britain.

    But sure, use this opportunity, Aegir to distract and obfuscate.

    To live in your black and white world must be amazing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,027 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »

    I asked in what way? pointing to a dictionary does not cut it. Is it a voluntary union? Where is the equivalent of an Article 50?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I asked in what way? pointing to a dictionary does not cut it. Is it a voluntary union? Where is the equivalent of an Article 50?

    There is no article 50 just as there is no admission policy.

    When the Scottish Parliament approached Westminster it was never envisaged that it would be reversed, just as it is not envisaged that if Scotland left, it could apply for readmission.

    You are questioning something that happened over three hundred years ago and trying to compare it with modern events.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    I asked in what way? pointing to a dictionary does not cut it. Is it a voluntary union? Where is the equivalent of an Article 50?
    Seriously
    What's with the pedantry ?

    Scotland is in a political union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    That's pretty widely established.

    Stop splitting hairs about terminology and make a worthwhile contribution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,761 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Aegir wrote: »
    That’s a complete red herring though, based on your own views.

    You may as well say that Ireland likes to portray itself as a bastion of civil rights and equality when in reality, it’s mired with political corruption, child abuse and financial incompetence, no wonder Cork wants independence.

    The reality is, Scotland is very much front and centre of official UK, just as Cork is very much part of official Ireland.

    You can try and paint this as a poor Celtic nation being subjugated by the big bad Saxon foe as much as you like, but that really is not reality.

    Just for full clarity here.


    Cork doesn't want independence. It's a country it's an on going 'In' joke . I'm really hoping you were trying to make some joke there (it's actually not very clear tbh) otherwise you've shown a gaping hole in your understanding of Ireland.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    listermint wrote: »
    Just for full clarity here.


    Cork doesn't want independence. It's a country it's an on going 'In' joke . I'm really hoping you were trying to make some joke there (it's actually not very clear tbh) otherwise you've shown a gaping hole in your understanding of Ireland.

    Of course i was not serious, I was using it as an example.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,027 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Seriously
    What's with the pedantry ?

    Scotland is in a political union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    That's pretty widely established.

    Stop splitting hairs about terminology and make a worthwhile contribution.

    It is not splitting hairs at all, the people in Scotland have been told since 2014 that the UK is a precious union. I am aking in what way is it a union, never mind a precious union

    Is it a voluntary union? If it is not a voluntary union, at least be honest with people


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    It is not splitting hairs at all, the people in Scotland have been told since 2014 that the UK is a precious union. I am aking in what way is it a union, never mind a precious union

    Is it a voluntary union? If it is not a voluntary union, at least be honest with people

    It is a union that the Scots voluntarily entered in to.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,761 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Aegir wrote: »
    Of course i was not serious, I was using it as an example.

    Ah grand.

    It was a terrible example. One is a country in it's own right the other is a county.

    Very poor point , poorly made.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,027 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Aegir wrote: »
    It is a union that the Scots voluntarily entered in to.

    That is simply not true, the people in Scotland were not even consulted. Anyhow, are you are stating that an event that happened over 300 years ago cannot be reversed if the people want it reversed?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    That is simply not true, the people in Scotland were not even consulted. Anyhow, are you are stating that an event that happened over 300 years ago cannot be reversed if the people want it reversed?

    The people in Scotland were consulted as much as anyone was consulted about politics 300 years ago.

    I never said it can’t be reversed, where did you pull that one from?

    There is a process and that was last tested seven years ago. The Scots decided to stay in the Union, or at least the people that live there did.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I'm not sure I'd classify the joining of kingdoms for monarchic convenience as a voluntary move by "Scots". Or indeed anyone else on the island. Besides, and here the historical experts can correct me, James I was King of Scotland first and foremost so really Edinburgh should be centre of the Union, not London ;) - if we're taking centuries old precedence as the driver here.

    Scottish self determination should only be considered as old as the modern democratic institutions that dictate the current iteration of the UK, anything less is just silly. So to that end, if we take the devolution ref of 79 as the starting point, it's already a 40+ year project. Within a union where enfranchisement itself is barely 100+ years old (I can't recall when women got the vote, though IIRC that act technically included all men over 18, as opposed to only college grads).


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,877 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Scotland has been part of a union for centuries with very little difference between them and the rest of the union, same language, religion etc etc.
    From an outsider it's difficult to see why they want independence in the first place.
    Most outsiders would be aware of Scottish culture. Engineers, kilts, bagpipes, whisky etc. There's only two places in the world where coco cola isn't the biggest selling soft drink and the other one is a major cocaine producer.


    NHS Scotland was setup at the same time as NHS England. They are parallel but separate.

    Different legal system etc. etc.

    Banks are independent but hold English Sterling to match the Scottish pounds they put in circulation.

    Scotland is parallel to England but like Northern Ireland there are differences.

    Same religion ? , ye olde can of worms. Seriously, who is the head of the Church of Scotland ?

    Language ? try telling folk in NI that Scots is the same as English.

    Scotland's 'share' of the UK population is 10% (9.7%) - so HS2 and Trident could mean £20-£40bn taken from them.


    Thanks to the CTA people would have the freedom to to work and live elsewhere. Pensions too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'd classify the joining of kingdoms for monarchic convenience as a voluntary move by "Scots". Or indeed anyone else on the island. Besides, and here the historical experts can correct me, James I was King of Scotland first and foremost so really Edinburgh should be centre of the Union, not London ;) - if we're taking centuries old precedence as the driver here.

    Scottish self determination should only be considered as old as the modern democratic institutions that dictate the current iteration of the UK, anything less is just silly. So to that end, if we take 79 as the starting point, it's already a 40+ year project. Within a union where enfranchisement itself is barely 100+ years old (I can't recall when women got the vote, though IIRC that act technically included all men over 18, as opposed to only college grads).

    1918


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    1918

    Thanks. Gosh that really is nothing. So there's the most reasonable time frame we can consider scottish nationalism as a question to the people itself. And to that end, self determination has been a yes since for 40 years, just remains a split decision, coupled with trapdoors to stop excessive autonomy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 45,552 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    Significant event in Glasgow today as protestors managed to get a UK immigration van to release two men that had earlier been detained.

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1392887669684949000

    https://twitter.com/ReidEileen1/status/1392883317188481026

    Watching images like this adds to the sense that these are countries with very different outlooks moving in very different directions.

    This was the Scottish government's take, as reported by the BBC:
    Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who is also the MSP for the area, said she disagreed fundamentally with Home Office immigration policy.

    She said: "This action was unacceptable. To act in this way, in the heart of a Muslim community as they celebrated Eid, and in an area experiencing a Covid outbreak was a health and safety risk."

    She said she would be "demanding assurances" from the UK government that they would not create such a dangerous situation again.

    She added: "No assurances were given - and frankly no empathy shown - when I managed to speak to a junior minister earlier."

    Humza Yousaf, the Scottish government's justice secretary, said: "the action they [the Home Office] have today is at best completely reckless, and at worst intended to provoke, on a day the UK government would have known the Scottish government and MSPs would be distracted by parliamentary process."

    He added that the situation "should never have occurred", and that "the UK government's hostile environment is not welcome here."

    BBC Scotland has asked the Home Office to comment.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I'm not sure I'd classify the joining of kingdoms for monarchic convenience as a voluntary move by "Scots". Or indeed anyone else on the island. Besides, and here the historical experts can correct me, James I was King of Scotland first and foremost so really Edinburgh should be centre of the Union, not London ;) - if we're taking centuries old precedence as the driver here.

    Arguably, yes.

    It wasn’t really monarchical convenience, the monarch was shared for a long time prior to the act of Union. Scotland had been through a very hard time, famine and severe winters had decimated large parts of the population and disruptions to trade with the Dutch and the French meant Scotland was on it knees. Then the ill fated Darien scheme blew every last bit of capital the country had, so they basically went (for the third time of asking) to Westminster seeking a Union. Westminster had rejected the first two approaches, but as the Scots were basically using their armies as mercenaries to fight alongside whoever was at war with England, the English parliament decided a Union could solve the headache of going to war against bagpipe playing hordes and have them in their side for a change.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Significant event in Glasgow today as protestors managed to get a UK immigration van to release two men that had earlier been detained.

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1392887669684949000

    https://twitter.com/ReidEileen1/status/1392883317188481026

    Watching images like this adds to the sense that these are countries with very different outlooks moving in very different directions.

    This was the Scottish government's take, as reported by the BBC:

    Lovely bit of popularism there from the first minister.


Advertisement