nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Scottish independence

Faye McAleer

Would you be in support of a politico-economic union and formal international intergovernmental cooperation between the three Gaelic nations, (united) Ireland, (independent) Scotland and the Isle of Man similar to Benelux?

The Benelux cooperation has served as a model for the EU, and is basically an EU lite, comprising a customs union and a parliament as well as shared resources.

This could work between the three Gaelic nations and when we get reunification and the Scottish get independence, I think it is something good that should be created.

What do you think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

breezy1985

An Claidheamh wrote: »

True but in reality if the Irish government said they wanted one, UK would have no choice, same if Stormont said they wanted one

Thats pure nonsense. No UK government is going to care about us asking.

Sam Russell

An Claidheamh wrote: »

True but in reality if the Irish government said they wanted one, UK would have no choice, same if Stormont said they wanted one

breezy1985 wrote: »

Thats pure nonsense. No UK government is going to care about us asking.

The Irish Gov can ask all they want - and will be ignored.

Stormont can pass a motion asking for one, and that MAY get a result - but only if it passes by a very large margin. A labour Gov might agree to one, but a Tory - two chances.

briany

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Probably but it would also be a good tactical move. Let the vaccine/pandemic bounce fade away and let the Tory populists show themselves for what they are. Then point the finger and say how much better off an independent Scotland would be.

I don't know if this would be a particularly compelling argument for Scottish independence. It's asking voters to make a permanent decision based on something temporary, i.e. the current iteration of the UK government. For this argument to be successful, you would have to convince enough voters that the economic and political downward slide would be a painful and chronic one.

BonnieSituation

briany wrote: »

I don't know if this would be a particularly compelling argument for Scottish independence. It's asking voters to make a permanent decision based on something temporary, i.e. the current iteration of the UK government. For this argument to be successful, you would have to convince enough voters that the economic and political downward slide would be a painful and chronic one.

It's not a "current iteration".

eire4

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The timeline for the 2014 referendum was

May 2011 - Election to Scottish Parliament
May 2011 to October 2012 - negotiations between Scottish govt and UK govt about a section 30 order
October 2012 - Edinburgh Agreement on Section 30 order
January 2013 - power transferred to Scottish parliament (temp section 30 order)
March 2013 - Referendum date announced (18 Sept 2014)
Dec 2013 - Scottish parliament passes referendum legislation and Royal assent given
Sept 2014 - Referendum

Talk of a referendum actually taking place this year or next are fanciful given the timeline above but that does not mean preparations should not take place now

FWIW, independence was polling on average about 30% in 2011-12 (incl undecided)

As the pandemic hopefully fades towards the end of this year and hopefully we are back to normal in 2022 I think we will start to see the full negative effects of brexit come into play with no pandemic to mitigate or hide them. IMHO it would make sense for the SNP to let this happen and let the Tories keep on saying No No No a la Thatcher and all that together would put the SNP in strong position to not just hold the independence referendum but also win it.

breezy1985

briany wrote: »

I don't know if this would be a particularly compelling argument for Scottish independence. It's asking voters to make a permanent decision based on something temporary, i.e. the current iteration of the UK government. For this argument to be successful, you would have to convince enough voters that the economic and political downward slide would be a painful and chronic one.

Brexit was started by this government but it doesnt end with it. The fight will be a straight up one between which union is better for Scotland the British one or the European one

BonnieSituation

eire4 wrote: »

AS the pandemic hopefully fades towards the end of this year and hopefully we are back to normal in 2022 I think we will start to see the full negative effects of brexit come into play with no pandemic to mitigate or hide them. IMHO it would make sense for the SNP to let this happen and let the Tories keep on saying No No No a la Thatcher and all that together would put the SNP in strong position to not just hold the independence referendum but also win it.

But that's exactly how it will play out. The SNP won't be touching a referendum this side of 2023.

Sam Russell

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But that's exactly how it will play out. The SNP won't be touching a referendum this side of 2023.

The SNP have been able to demonstrate that the Scottish handling of the pandemic was better than the English/Westminster handling.

The economic argument is best left to the campaign. How could the English Tory party claim that their imposition of austerity was good for anyone - especially Scotland. How was their decision, against the decision of Scotland, to Brexit was in anyway good for Scotland.

The SNP should argue that referendum is to ASK the Scottish people a question - not to tell them they cannot even ask that question unless they can prove beyond any doubt what the result of asking the question will be.

That last point is the most valid question to press. The Brexit question was asked knowing the result would ne NO, but it was YES.

An Claidheamh

breezy1985 wrote: »

Thats pure nonsense. No UK government is going to care about us asking.

They probably wouldn't be too bothered by anything Martin would say

However,

If the Irish govt made it clear they wanted a poll, Britain could not withstand pressure from US or indeed threat of all Ireland Republican violence (which would essentially be an invitation)

Brexit showed they are not willing to take on any type of IRA

BonnieSituation

An Claidheamh wrote: »

They probably wouldn't be too bothered by anything Martin would say

However,

If the Irish govt made it clear they wanted a poll, Britain could not withstand pressure from US or indeed threat of all Ireland Republican violence (which would essentially be an invitation)

Brexit showed they are not willing to take on any type of IRA

I know what I think you're trying to say, but it's not coming across well at all.

If the SOS was to take a notion and call a poll, there is no doubt that they would give Iveagh House or Merrion Street a call beforehand so that the announcement could be staged managed. But there isn't going to be a request from ourselves or the US nor will there be a sustained campaign from dissidents to make it happen.

View

An Claidheamh wrote: »

They probably wouldn't be too bothered by anything Martin would say

However,

If the Irish govt made it clear they wanted a poll, Britain could not withstand pressure from US or indeed threat of all Ireland Republican violence (which would essentially be an invitation)

Brexit showed they are not willing to take on any type of IRA

No one at British cabinet level is going to make a decision because the Irish government want them to do so. And the US isn’t going to upset a major NATO ally over something as trivial as NI.

breezy1985

View wrote: »

No one at British cabinet level is going to make a decision because the Irish government want them to do so. And the US isn’t going to upset a major NATO ally over something as trivial as NI.

The UN would have been in long ago if the US were that interested

hotmail.com

View wrote: »

No one at British cabinet level is going to make a decision because the Irish government want them to do so. And the US isn’t going to upset a major NATO ally over something as trivial as NI.

Biden is visiting UK in his first overseas visit. It's not an accident he chose that. Whilst many Americans sympathetic to Irish causes, their priority is and always has been to Britain.

Professor Moriarty

hotmail.com wrote: »

Biden is visiting UK in his first overseas visit. It's not an accident he chose that. Whilst many Americans sympathetic to Irish causes, their priority is and always has been to Britain.

Do you know the purpose of his visit?

Peregrinus

hotmail.com wrote: »

Biden is visiting UK in his first overseas visit. It's not an accident he chose that. Whilst many Americans sympathetic to Irish causes, their priority is and always has been to Britain.

He's going to the G7 meeting. From there, he's going to the NATO summit.

This trip is about the G7 and NATO, not so much about the UK and Belgium.

hotmail.com

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Do you know the purpose of his visit?

The G7 meeting.

Symbolically, a nice coincidence to confirm the special relationship between Britain and America, a relationship and friendship that goes back decades.

Peregrinus

hotmail.com wrote: »

The G7 meeting.

Symbolically, a nice coincidence to confirm the special relationship between Britain and America, a relationship and friendship that goes back decades.

Meh. If it's a relationship that only gets confirmed by coincidence it's not that special, is it?

The focus in the UK on who Biden calls first, which country he visits first, suggests the opposite of what it's supposed to; it suggest that in fact the UK — or, at least, some people in the UK — are pretty insecure about the special relationship. If the NATO summit had been scheduled for just before the G7 summit instead of just after, Biden would be visiting Belgium first. Would that mean that the relationship with the UK had been downgraded? Of course not. But, conversely, the fact that he is visiting the UK first really tells us nothing positive about the special relationship.

The substance of the special relationship is mainly about military co-operation and intelligence co-operation. The special relationship at any time is as strong or as weak as the incumbent US administration wants it to be, but you can't really read the entrails of official visit sequencing to determine how strong or weak it is. If you could, that wouldn't say anything good about the special relationship.

The UK is not the only country to have a name for its relations with the US. France is the "Oldest Ally", for example. These names tend to have more traction in the countries to which they refer than they do in the United States itself.

Professor Moriarty

hotmail.com wrote: »

The G7 meeting.

Symbolically, a nice coincidence to confirm the special relationship between Britain and America, a relationship and friendship that goes back decades.

The UK happens to be hosting the G7. So he did not choose the UK for his first overseas visit.

hotmail.com

Even JFK was more English oriented than Irish.

The Americans love the Royal Family, love British culture and the feeling is mutual.

Professor Moriarty

hotmail.com wrote: »

Even JFK was more English oriented than Irish.

The Americans love the Royal Family, love British culture and the feeling is mutual.

They do. The WASP element of the US sees England as its ancestral homeland. And this cohort is still very powerful and influential.

Sam Russell

I thought this thread was about Scotland and its pursuit of independence.

dogbert27

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought this thread was about Scotland and its pursuit of independence.

I think the poster is badly trying to convince us that the US would not support Scotland in breaking up the United Kingdom because the US has a special relationship with the UK.

Peregrinus

There;s a shorter and more direct route to the same conclusion. You don't need to invoke the special relationship at all. The US would not support Scotland leaving the union because (a) it's none of their business; it would be an interference in the sovereign concerns of the UK, a friendly state that they have no reason to want to offend; and (b) in any event, they would not see it as being in their own interests for the UK to break up. Their preference would be for Scotland to remain in the UK, but they will be extremely cautious in anything they say about the question.

dogbert27

Peregrinus wrote: »

There;s a shorter and more direct route to the same conclusion. You don't need to invoke the special relationship at all. The US would not support Scotland leaving the union because (a) it's none of their business; it would be an interference in the sovereign concerns of the UK, a friendly state that they have no reason to want to offend; and (b) in any event, they would not see it as being in their own interests for the UK to break up. Their preference would be for Scotland to remain in the UK, but they will be extremely cautious in anything they say about the question.

I agree it the US would stay out of it. Which is why people are probably wondering why hotmail is repeatedly banging this special relationship drum and making a big deal of Biden going to the UK first when in fact it is for the G7 summit.

It will only be the Tory media who will make a big deal out of this.

It would only be an issue to Scotland if they were outside the UK and the EU and they needed a trade agreement with the US.

If Scotland's intention is to join the EU as a sovereign state then they will have a trade agreement with the US on EU terms.

Peregrinus

The special relationship is real.

But most people have a hazy grasp of what it actually is, constructed largely on wishful thinking. The special relationship is wholly irrelevant to a great many things that people cite it in connection with.

The special relationship does have a military dimension, and if the US places any meas at all on the UK's "independent nuclear deterrent", then if Scottish independence threatens to disrupt or degrade the UK's nuclear capacity, that would bother the US. But I'm not convinced that the US does put much meas on it.

The possibility of Scotland ceasing to be part of the NATO area and to contribute its modest capacity to NATO would also bother the US, though that has nothing to do with the special relationship; it would bother them if any potentially strategically significant territory was carved out of NATO. And it's not really an issue; SNP policy is that Indy Scotland would join NATO, and Scottish Labour and Scottish Tories would both support that.

dogbert27

Peregrinus wrote: »

The special relationship is real.

But most people have a hazy grasp of what it actually is, constructed largely on wishful thinking. The special relationship is wholly irrelevant to a great many things that people cite it in connection with.

The special relationship does have a military dimension, and if the US places any meas at all on the UK's "independent nuclear deterrent", then if Scottish independence threatens to disrupt or degrade the UK's nuclear capacity, that would bother the US. But I'm not convinced that the US does put much meas on it.

The possibility of Scotland ceasing to be part of the NATO area and to contribute its modest capacity to NATO would also bother the US, though that has nothing to do with the special relationship; it would bother them if any potentially strategically significant territory was carved out of NATO. And it's not really an issue; SNP policy is that Indy Scotland would join NATO, and Scottish Labour and Scottish Tories would both support that.

As you pointed out though the special relationship is as real at it is with the US relationship with other countries, e.g. France being oldest ally.

The poster in particular seems to think that the special relationship with the UK is "the main" special relationship that the US in the world and proved by Biden going to the UK first.

As you say it is more of a military relationship as the UK does tend to support the US in their military decisions more than Germany or France do.

Peregrinus

It's a military and intelligence relationship. My suspicion is that the US values the intelligence side of it more than the military side of it, but they do value them both.

It doesn't translate into US support for UK policy generally (as the UK discovered with Suez in 1956 and on a number of occasions since) and it doesn't translate into US support for the British government of the day when there is domestic disagreement over policy in the UK.

The US would probably not favour Scottish independence, but (a) this has nothing to do with the special relationship; and (b) it won't lead them to intervene in what, unless and unit Scotland actually becomes independent, is a purely domestic UK affair.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a military and intelligence relationship. My suspicion is that the US values the intelligence side of it more than the military side of it, but they do value them both.

It doesn't translate into US support for UK policy generally (as the UK discovered with Suez in 1956 and on a number of occasions since) and it doesn't translate into US support for the British government of the day when there is domestic disagreement over policy in the UK.

The US would probably not favour Scottish independence, but (a) this has nothing to do with the special relationship; and (b) it won't lead them to intervene in what, unless and unit Scotland actually becomes independent, is a purely domestic UK affair.

The real reason is that 32 million Americans identify as Irish Americans. Given Britain's long history of subjugating the Irish, this cohort often has a negative view of Britain. This plays out electorally in the US which is the main reason why Biden and other politicians emphasise any Irish heritage they may have. Similarly, it is why Biden and other Democrats such as Pelosi have been very vocal about the GFA and take a keen interest in British-Irish affairs especially regarding NI.

Regarding Scottish independence, there is no such interest or electoral gain. There is no significant cohort that is vocal about Scotland. So, in the context of independence, mild interest is as much as Scotland could expect from the US.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The real reason is that 32 million Americans identify as Irish Americans. Given Britain's long history of subjugating the Irish, this cohort often has a negative view of Britain. This plays out electorally in the US which is the main reason why Biden and other politicians emphasise any Irish heritage they may have. Similarly, it is why Biden and other Democrats such as Pelosi have been very vocal about the GFA and take a keen interest in British-Irish affairs especially regarding NI.

Regarding Scottish independence, there is no such interest or electoral gain. There is no significant cohort that is vocal about Scotland. So, in the context of independence, mild interest is as much as Scotland could expect from the US.

Its actually closer to 40 million but its usually overlooked that a significant percentage of them originated as Northern Irish protestants of Scottish extraction. They are less animated about perceived injustices being perpetrated on the southern Irish.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

Its actually closer to 40 million but its usually overlooked that a significant percentage of them originated as Northern Irish protestants of Scottish extraction. They are less animated about perceived injustices being perpetrated on the southern Irish.

My figure comes from the 2019 US census. The point remains that Scotland has no such cohort. It can expect no special relationship with the US because there is no electoral gain for politicians in promoting this.