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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Scottish independence

1969799101102117

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Scotland is not an independent coun ry and the Scottish government gets their budget set by Westminster so your stance that the issues in Scotland only pertain to Scotland and have nothing to do with how Westminster runs things is wide off the mark



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,009 ✭✭✭Hodors Appletart


    This "domestic issues" thing is a red herring. Ireland had "domestic issues" in the early 20s, should we not have gone independent? Ireland has domestic issues now, was independence a bad idea?

    Every country in the world will have its own so called domestic issues, and something will always need sorting. Pretending that anything (even up to the prospect of a civil war) is a reason for a nation not to have independence is, in my mind, a bad faith argument.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,199 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    People had different lifestyles and expectations 100 years ago. I doubt that any Scot would be prepared for that, just for independence's sake.

    If I would have lived in Ireland back then, I doubt that I myself would have stayed around or would have had anything to celebrate. Even in the DeValera years, Irish emmigrated in masses. Times were not that rosy in Ireland back then.



  • Registered Users Posts: 45,535 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    Sturgeon has given a statement saying she expects the UK government to continue 'democracy denial', and the SNP aren't abandoning the referendum route - the UK are blocking it. Says therefore the UK general election will be an opportunity to have a de facto referendum. The SNP will hold a special party conference in the new year to discuss the details of the de facto referendum.

    Sturgeon has shown good leadership here. She hasn't abandoned the de facto referendum tactic, and she has made clear independence must come about peacefully and through democracy.

    Key message that the SNP should hammer home in the weeks and months ahead: we haven't abandoned a referendum; the UK won't grant one. How is Scotland to achieve independence if Westminster keeps ignoring a Scottish mandate?

    'It is better to walk alone in the right direction than follow the herd walking in the wrong direction.'



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


    Any beyond that: when will "domestic issues" ever be that optimal to go for independence? Conveniently never really - 'cos there are always issues. It all kinda reads quite similar to the GOP's love to go "now is not the time" when people beg for gun control - knowing there'll always be another mass shooting next week to kick the can.

    No country becomes independent in its perfect state: the nature of independence is itself an emotional decision because the very concept of the Nation State is an artifice and invention of civilisation; we choose to recognise some lines on a map as "sovereign" because it was a decision taken either by a monarch, a people, or a government - but always an emotional, non-intellectual decision.

    Scotland will never be ready "enough". And is reductionist to talk about an independence campaign and domestic issues are mutually exclusive.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Actually borders are defined by military considerations.

    That is why many borders follow rivers with the river as the border. Normally settlements form on both sides of the river, with a lot of trade and communication between the two sides, with deep cultural equalities. However, when strangers come and try to impose on these settlements, they use the river as a border. As there are other strangers trying to do the same on the other side of the river, it is easy to define the river as the limit, and then easy to defend. Mountain ridges also are good delimiters.

    Having defined the border, the next step is to further the culture. Just consider the Basques - some are in France and some are in Spain - big difference between them, but the cannot unify. Also, the Kurds are spread across Turkey, Iraq, and Iran - and cannot unify because of the opposition from each of those countries.

    Scotland has a natural border with England, and a huge difference in culture. Even the accent changes as the border is crossed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,668 ✭✭✭serfboard


    "How is Scotland to achieve independence"

    To me, there is only one route open now and that is a scenario after a Westminster election where the SNP votes are needed to form a majority, and a referendum is the price of their support.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo



    An alternative being the Scottish parliament elections



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,636 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    It might be the only route but it is incredibly unrealistic, Starmer has ruled out an SNP partnership due to the price being an indy ref and the tories will also be unlikely to agree to such terms, also I doubt the SNP would ever support the tories regardless of the terms.

    But even so this is hardly a democratic path to independence if all they can hope for is for English voters splitting in such a perfect way that the lib dems arent a viable option and only the SNP can help with a majority.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    The Tories won't risk carving up the union (I know, I know...) via dealing with Sturgeon. Labour won't want to cut itself off from potential votes and nobody wants to lose Scotland's strategic position in the North Sea and the North Sea oil deposits.

    The SNP is guaranteed at least 45-50 seats as far as I can tell. Hard to see the Lib Dems doing so well.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,636 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I agree so no matter how well the SNP do and what kind of theoretical stalemate happens neither major party will ever give the SNP what they want in exchange for majority support.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    It still baffled me that Cameron allowed the 2014 referendum at all. Clearly he thought he could put the issue to bed with it.

    I don't see what other options the SNP have now though unless they can get support from the US and even then...

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    I think we will see an act and Westminster will stipulate that Yes will need a majority of the electorate, just like they did in 1978




  • Registered Users Posts: 17,636 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    The irony of that statement coming from a government elected on less percentage from the UK than the SNP received in Scotland. They are perfectly happy to display and use to undemocraticness of FPtP when it suits them.

    I doubt the tories will ever pass such an act unless forced to legally by the courts, maybe Labour might but i cant see it happening under Starmer



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,965 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Also considering Jack is about to be appointed to the House of the unelected



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I remember 2015 when the SNP tail under Alex Salmond was going to be wagging the Labour dog. Starmer's been burnishing his Unionist credentials accordingly.

    If I were a rabid unionist, I'd be praying for a Labour win asap.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,959 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    English nationalists keep on saying that there isn't a hope in hell Scotland would vote to leave the union. Why aren't they (the English nationalists) begging for a referendum then? A referendum defeat would kill off the issue for years, maybe decades.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,021 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    This. The Supreme Court judgment allows Westminster simply to refuse to permit an independence referendum. But in the long term the Union can't be held together simply by refusing to allow constituent countries to express the wish to leave; it will lack democratic legitimacy. The Union will be much, much stronger if it is endorsed by a Scottish referendum and unionists who expect to win such a referendum should welcome that.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    If the UK Gov wants to defuse the Scottish Nationalist fervour, they should strengthen the devolution powers, and extend them to the regions of England as well as Scotland, Wales and NI.

    By giving extensive identical powers to the regions (which each would have a population of about 5 million (except Wales and NI) and could be similar powers an the Germen Lander. In truth the Union becomes a federation.

    The central Gov could be reduced in extent and reach to just federal matters. This was promised by Cameron (for Scotland) but immediately forgotten. They flew the Saltern over 10 Downing St in solidarity with Scotland (for one day) just to show how strong the promise was - which it did - for one day.

    However, full independence is essential because Scotland should decide for Scotland - and England will still dominate the Union.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Gordon Brown is currently working on a report for Labour recommending exactly that though I'm not sure if it mentions the English regions. Personally, I strongly support a properly federalised UK and England with the sovereign as head of state as a compromise. It'd defuse a lot of the Metropolitan elite sentiment and give people real control over how their communities develop. There are a lot of regional English identities that have been crushed by the larger English identity as well. This would give them some room to breathe and flourish.

    This is from Reddit but it offers a potential template:


    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    @ancapailldorcha Yes that is the template I would use, but with a few tweaks.

    I would amalgamate Essex and East Anglia, and Cornwall and Dumnonia. Leaving out the CI and IoM, that leaves 13 regions, or 11 if Scotland and NI leave. All over 5 million except Wales and Cornwall/Dumnonia.

    That would work, with each region responsible for Police, Education, Health and care, local roads, social housing, etc.

    Perhaps if the powers were extensive, Scotland might decide to stay.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,959 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    I can't help thinking though this would be along the lines of the Home Rule Bill of 1912. Would the SNP and Scottish nationalists ever settle for being a mere 'British region'? Their whole raison d'etre is that Scotland is a separate nation and does not belong in the UK, no matter how much power is devolved.



  • Registered Users Posts: 932 ✭✭✭snowstorm445


    Wasn't there an effort to set up devolved regions under Blair which failed after they put it to a vote in the North of England?

    It's a very sensible idea for the UK's long-term future, but Britain is a very idiosyncratic, intransigent state when it comes to its political system. Even the act of holding a referendum is quite rare for them. Never mind all the other overdue measures like transforming/abolishing the House of Lords or drafting a codified constitution. They have their own arcane mess of a system and they're very proud of it.

    So something as revolutionary as full federalisation seems very unrealistic to me. Even though it would actually put Scotland on an equal footing with the rest of the country - which so many British nationalists pretend they already are.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Well, Irish Nationalists would have settled for Home Rule as granted in 1914, but it was snatched away. In 1916, the rebellion went full republic, but again, the British Gov turned what was a defeat for the uprising into a victory for them by executing the leaders - one by one.

    That settled it - no longer was Home Rule enough but full independence.

    Scotland wants and deserves full independence. Their vote to remain in the EU was not respected in any way, and the current Tory Gov does not even let the SNP speak on Scottish matters.

    Now, the SC has ruled there is no way for a referendum to be allowed except by the English political parties allowing one - which obviously they will never do.

    So up the Republic.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    There was, as I recall.

    The thing with the English political system is that it has successfully held while the rest of the continent endured religious wars, revolutions and uprisings. It has proven to be remarkably stable. It does, however have one weakness: it relies on being run by honest people, historian Peter Hennessy's good chap theory of government.

    That foundation has been thoroughly ruined. Politicians openly aspire to office simply for personal benefit though that's by no means only a Tory issue and we now have senior ministers more interested in virtue signalling and trolling than actually working and huge swathes of the public clap like seals. The good chaps have either left or are cowed.

    The Scots have an identity older than a millennium, older than even the English identity. It's an old country with its own language, its own traditions and even its own legal system. I'm not sure that independence is the best way forward but they should still be allowed to choose.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 45,535 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    I see Arlene Foster has entered the debate at the launch of her new pro-UK campaign group, 'Together UK'. She's had a go at the SNP:

    She'll be a great boost to Scottish nationalism, as she was for its Irish sister. I had to laugh when I heard she had described the SNP as "just about anti-everything". This is the woman that led the DUP.

    There's a real serious lack of quality thinkers in unionism right now.

    'It is better to walk alone in the right direction than follow the herd walking in the wrong direction.'



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,659 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    CI, IoM are already devolved and like NI , Wales and Scotland have always been distinct.

    Cornwall has a separate identity too.

    other ways to slice and dice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_of_England


    As a part of the UK any powers Scotland has could be revoked by a vote in Westminster. They have privileges not rights.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    The CI are not part of the UK, and neither is the Isle of Man, although the UK Gov does an amount of coverage for them. Both are British Crown Dependencies.

    Any way that England is divided up would be fine by me. The only guiding light is that they should be as near as possible to be about the same populations which would be roughly the same as Scotland - that is about 5 million. Given the London has to be about 8 million, then nine regions would be fine.

    Cornwall is too small to fit into that idea, and its separate identity is no different from other areas that claim to be different from others. It is also one of the poorest regions of the UK.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,659 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The poverty is why is should be a separate region. And not repeat our mistake of lumping not as poor counties into the BMW regions to maximise short term EU grants which then dried up as the comparatively richer counties lifted the average up even though the poorer counties alone the border were still poor.

    By lumping it in with richer counties it won't qualify for state aid, which is the sort of slight of hand you'd expect from the Tories.

    It's something we may have to look at here in a UI with north east Antrim having different rules.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    However regions are set up, there will always be areas that are rich and others poor.

    Even within Dublin 4 - the richest area in Dublin, there are areas of poverty. Every city, ant town, have areas of poverty and areas of wealth. That is just he way it is. Each regi0nal authority has to deal with this as necessary - however there are divided.



Advertisement