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 - What say you?

dlofnep

So I'm sure you're all familiar now with the ongoing issue surrounding an upcoming referendum for Scottish independence. I'm trying to gauge the general vibe of the Irish public.

During the last Scottish national elections, the Scottish National Party won a remarkable majority ahead of the traditional favourites, The Labour Party. Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP and David Cameron have been at odds over the specifics of the referendum - but nevertheless - it will occur (likely August 2014).

It's important to note that Scotland returned only one Tory MP in the last general elections, and only about 10% or thereabouts in the Scottish national elections. But yet - Scotland is still under the control of the Conservative Party - and this seems to be a contentious issue.

"The days of Tory PMs telling Scotland what to do are over" - Alex Salmond.

So what say AH? Would you in principle favour an independent Scottish state, where the Scottish people alone would control all of their affairs - or would you prefer Scotland to remain in the Union, where some important matters (fiscal affairs and foreign policy) are still controlled through Westminster?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lugha

The Scots should decide what is in their own best interests and act accordingly. And by best interests I mean in relation to important stuff, like their economic well being, their public services, education and health and so on. And perhaps, if it’s a big enough deal for them, they might be attracted to the idea of being able to formulate their own foreign policy, if they fancied a less “involved” role that Britain currently pursues.

But if it is driven silly nationalist notions, if people are being won over by the argument that this will give them freedom (one of the great bull sh*t words!) or that they are better to be able being independent and being able to make their own decisions, even if they will be worse off all around as a consequence (is there any greater testament than this to the capacity of nationalism to stop people thinking straight), then they shouldn’t.

There will inevitably be at least some of the latter, but one would hope the Scots would have enough sense to be, well sensible.

Sindri

There only looking for the right to tax themselves.

It's not independence.

They remain in union and the queen is still head of state.

This independence thing is a load of bollix.

This people is all there is to it.

gurramok

LordSutch wrote: »

A/ Its all very well with some folk hoping that the UK breaks up, but the consequenses are many and varied and far reaching, (Britain on the world stage will not be Britain on the world stage anymore) and no doubt there would be consequesces for us here too. A newly independent revenue generating Scotland may well be a dynamic player in the fight for High tech jobs, jobs that they may try & poach from us here in the Republic.

This is a red herring. Did you not notice that a rake of states from the old Iron Curtain have been competing for those same jobs for the last 20 years??!

jaffacakesyum wrote:

If Scotland gained independence from the UK, however, what would happen in the North do you think? More violence a la the Troubles maybe

Where did you spring this conclusion from?

Cavehill Red

LordSutch wrote: »

A/ Its all very well with some folk hoping that the UK breaks up, but the consequenses are many and varied and far reaching, (Britain on the world stage will not be Britain on the world stage anymore) and no doubt there would be consequesces for us here too. A newly independent revenue generating Scotland may well be a dynamic player in the fight for High tech jobs, jobs that they may try & poach from us here in the Republic. The ramifications of a UK breakup are very serious indeed, so Cameron is dead right to force Salmonds hand, the referendum should be called sooner rather than later before anymore damage is done, and as regards the reference to the 2nd half of the term, this was not in the SNP manifesto, it was an "add on" just prior to the election, and anyway, who is Alex Salmond to dictate the date of a referendum which could (possibly)? breakup the United Kingdom !!!

He's the only man with a mandate to lead Scotland. No one in London has such a mandate, least of all Cameron.

LordSutch wrote: »

B/ On another point - It will be interesting to see just who is going to be the pro Union voice? might David Cameron himself (Scottish heritage) be the best mouthpiece for the Pro-Union lobby? or might he push even more Scots into the arms of the SNP? Or what about ex PM good old 'Gordon Brown' a real Scot with a Labour background, might he be a better Pro-Union mouthpiece? Or what about ex Liberal leader & another true Scot 'David Steele'? then there's 'David Mundell' who is the only Conservative Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency!

Or one of the pandas - after all they're better represented in Scotland than Tories are.

LordSutch wrote: »

Ironic that those who want a so called 'United Ireland' say that its sheer madness having two Parliaments/ two Economies one island, and yet, many of those same people say that Scotland should break away from the rest of their island, then create a seperate economy, and become a seperate entity on the same island !!!

Nothing ironic about this at all. NI never was a nation, and never will be, since it is utterly unviable on its own (a point which sunk into UUP skulls, leading them to back off from Ulster nationalism and forge an alliance with the Tories.) Scotland on the other hand is both a nation of longstanding and economically viable. They already have their own parliament, so nothing changes there. Despite Tory scaremongering, they might well be entitled to remain in the sterling zone too. Independence or no, they will remain closely linked to the English economy, just as we are closely linked to the English economy nearly 100 years after seeking our independence.

Your understanding of irony appears to be as flawed as that of Alanis Morrisette.

LordSutch

Sindri wrote: »

There only looking for the right to tax themselves.

It's not independence.

They remain in union and the queen is still head of state.

This independence thing is a load of bollix.

This people is all there is to it.

So you're thinking "Devo Max" which keeps Scotland within the UK, but only just . . .

c_man

Meh, Scots have more power over themselves than the English do. Scottish men have led the 'oppressive' parliament for over a decade in recent times.

If they vote for it, let them off. But it's a lot of auld talk if you ask me.

Sindri

LordSutch wrote: »

So you're thinking "Devo Max" which keeps Scotland within the UK, but only just . . .

What, what I wrote is not an opinion, what ever hypothetical debate you are involved in, this is really just all Salmond has said, and all he wants for now.

LordSutch

Sindri wrote: »

What, what I wrote is not an opinion, what ever hypothetical debate you are involved in, this is really just all Salmond has said, and all he wants for now.

So you think they want total seperation, and not DevoMax?

PS this whole debate is hypothetical.

Sindri

LordSutch wrote: »

So you think they want total seperation, and not DevoMax?

PS this whole debate is hypothetical.

Sorry I saw you long past at the top of the page and I didn't want to be drawing into it.

But supposed fiscal autonomy is all they are asking for, and I agree. You can't be an effective or ineffective:rolleyes: government or really invest in your country without fiscal autonomy. The English MPs don't give a ****e about Scotland.

RichieC

Not a single feck was given that day...

44leto

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Did you feel the same about Sudan splitting?
Flanders and Wallonia have, like Scotland, longstanding separate identities as nations. If they wish to be together or apart, I wish them well, nothing shameful in either option.
In Britain, for over 1000 years, there have been three constituent nations of longstanding identity - England, Scotland and Wales. Other regional identities are of much lesser impact and importance, or have been lost to history (where is the Mercian independence movement?)
In Ireland, the single dominant national identity for many hundreds of years has been the island of Ireland as a single nation. That only ended with the creation of Ulster (rather than Irish) unionism and partition about a century back, and is still disputed by many.
So the comparison with Corkonian independence doesn't really compute, since there is no such sense of Corkonian nationhood of longstanding.

I did say "lets say Cork" it was just an example of what a unionist is. And Britain more then any other nation was forged by a collection of different nationalitities as was theirs and our language. The Angles the Saxons, the Jutes, the Celts, The Normans, The picts, the Romans and many more.

Although the English Scotish border was created by the Romans along Hadriens wall and it was conquered and then in the Act of Union 300 years ago it very much became "English" and produced many of the English great people, proportionally more, an amazing race of people.

But it was only in the 60s that the Scottish pushed a seperate identity and only since then has it stopped being referred to as English. So scottish nationally is relatively new.

Celly Smunt

I wonder if they'll have their country up the wall in 100 years too...

KeithAFC

Voted to keep the Union together.

mattjack

KeithAFC wrote: »

Voted to keep the Union together.

Thought you might...

Cavehill Red

44leto wrote: »

I did say "lets say Cork" it was just an example of what a unionist is. And Britain more then any other nation was forged by a collection of different nationalitities as was theirs and our language. The Angles the Saxons, the Jutes, the Celts, The Normans, The picts, the Romans and many more.

Although the English Scotish border was created by the Romans along Hadriens wall and it was conquered and then in the Act of Union 300 years ago it very much became "English" and produced many of the English great people, proportionally more, an amazing race of people.

But it was only in the 60s that the Scottish pushed a seperate identity and only since then has it stopped being referred to as English. So scottish nationally is relatively new.

What a one-eyed reading of history that is! Utterly ignores Scottish nationhood prior to James taking over from Elizabeth, or the need for an Act of Union in the early 18th century.
Ignores the fact that the Scots are much more homogenous genetically (just as we in Ireland are - way more Celt and Norse than anything else) than you describe (what you wrote applies to England, not Britain in its entirety).
There's nothing especially 'amazing' about the English, incidentally, other than a onetime talent for warmongering and imperialism. In fact, a disproportionate number of 'British' thinkers and inventors have been Scottish rather than English.
This revisionist idea that Scottish desire for independence didn't exist until the 60s is ludicrous and I challenge you to provide evidence to support it.

KeithAFC

Thought Nicola Sturgeon had a nightmare on Question Time last night. The moment currency was brought up, the argument of the SNP seemed to fall apart. They will never get a yes to independence if they go for the Euro. And a 3 question on the referendum will not work or be decisive.

purplepanda

ejmaztec wrote: »

There will have to be an amicable division of the armed forces, so that Scotland gets all of the nuclear subs, a load of ships and a pile of aircraft.

Russia & Ukraine split up their major military assets after the end of the Soviet Union, however this is unlikely to happen after any Scottish independence. The bases will be kept by UK military & controlled by the UK.

I really don't even think that Scotland would be, in reality, as independent as the Irish Free State was after 1921, a major issue in the civil war that followed. There are enough extreme unionists in Scotland to cause serious conflict, I'd imagine that the Borders region would vote against independence & possibly campaign for partition, in effect moving the border.

Also Catholic Scots tend to vote for Labour & the union, many are frightened of being a 20% or less minority in a Scottish state. The SNP still needs to capture more catholic votes to gain an outright majority.

Some want Scottish independence, many more favour extra devolution powers, similar to other nations in these islands, in response Unionism has historically been very reluctant to allow any serious power to the regions & nations from it's London base.

Gladstone wanted Home Rule for Scotland & a Home Rule bill for Scotland was actually passed by the House of Commons in 1913 then forgotten after WW1. Probably the same would have happened to the Irish Home rule bill of the period. :rolleyes:

The centralised undemocratic government from London of these islands for the last 300 years should have been replaced long ago by a Federal Union of England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales IMO. It would have saved us a lot of conflict over the centuries

Stinicker

Scotland will vote Yes to Independence in 2014 and they will give the vote to 16 year olds and the scottish youth will vote yes to Independence. Scotland's budgets are in surplus and they have massive oil and gas reserve which London has looted for decades.

It is enivatable that Scotland will leave, Cameron also wants Scotland to go for political reasons as they have only 1 MP in Scotland and Scotland plays a large part in electing Labour to Westminster. Getting rid of Scotland will cement Tory rule in the UK crushing Labour for decades.

With Scotland being Independent then Northern Ireland will come very under the spotlight as the pariah state it is. Changing Demographics will see 200,000 Protestant Unionists die over the next decade with a replacement rate of less than half that add to this the booming Catholic National demograph which will see Protestant Unionists outnumbered and outvoted all over the North.

Added to this their Scottish neighbors having abandoned the Union they will look very shakey indeed. Within ten years a referendum on Reunification of Ireland will take place and be passed paving the way for Ireland to finally be at peace.

The savings made by handing over the North to the ROI will more than make up for the lost oil revenue of Scotland and England and Wales will continue as a joint entity and whether the success of a United Ireland and Scottish Independence will stir Welsh Nationalism remains to be seen.

KeithAFC

purplepanda wrote: »

Russia & Ukraine split up their major military assets after the end of the Soviet Union, however this is unlikely to happen after any Scottish independence. The bases will be kept by UK military & controlled by the UK.

I really don't even think that Scotland would be, in reality, as independent as the Irish Free State was after 1921, a major issue in the civil war that followed. There are enough extreme unionists in Scotland to cause serious conflict, I'd imagine that the Borders region would vote against independence & possibly campaign for partition, in effect moving the border.

Also Catholic Scots tend to vote for Labour & the union, many are frightened of being a 20% or less minority in a Scottish state. The SNP still needs to capture more catholic votes to gain an outright majority.

Some want Scottish independence, many more favour extra devolution powers, similar to other nations in these islands, in response Unionism has historically been very reluctant to allow any serious power to the regions & nations from it's London base.

Gladstone wanted Home Rule for Scotland & a Home Rule bill for Scotland was actually passed by the House of Commons in 1913 then forgotten after WW1. Probably the same would have happened to the Irish Home rule bill of the period. :rolleyes:

The centralised undemocratic government from London of these islands for the last 300 years should have been replaced long ago by a Federal Union of England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales IMO. It would have saved us a lot of conflict over the centuries

The Borders region should campaign for partition if the worst happens.

gurramok

purplepanda wrote: »

I really don't even think that Scotland would be, in reality, as independent as the Irish Free State was after 1921, a major issue in the civil war that followed. There are enough extreme unionists in Scotland to cause serious conflict, I'd imagine that the Borders region would vote against independence & possibly campaign for partition, in effect moving the border.

Would they really go that far?? Somehow I doubt it, their Scottishness would be exposed to be a farce.

purplepanda wrote: »

Also Catholic Scots tend to vote for Labour & the union, many are frightened of being a 20% or less minority in a Scottish state. The SNP still needs to capture more catholic votes to gain an outright majority

You sure about this? As you mentioned religion and the Catholic minority, public figures like the leader of the Scottish Catholic Church did come out a few years ago advising their flock to vote for the SNP. Yes its religion again interfering in politics but thought I mention it. http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/edinburgh-east-fife/catholic_leader_backs_scottish_independence_1_1415979

This speech was a breakthrough for this religious minority to have no shame voting for the SNP as relations were rather strained between the two over decades hence that section of voters always voted Labour.

Irish Steve

Debate on this on BBC last night. what caught my attention was the suggestion that there is a possibility that if they get independence, Scotland might move to the Euro. As to the sense or otherwise of that idea, the thought that crosses my mind is that if Scotland and Ireland were both (still?) in the Euro, where would that leave Northern Ireland? If the countries on both sides of them were in the Euro, that would I suspect put some interesting pressure on the North.

Just 2c(1.something p) worth

KeithAFC

Irish Steve wrote: »

Debate on this on BBC last night. what caught my attention was the suggestion that there is a possibility that if they get independence, Scotland might move to the Euro. As to the sense or otherwise of that idea, the thought that crosses my mind is that if Scotland and Ireland were both (still?) in the Euro, where would that leave Northern Ireland? If the countries on both sides of them were in the Euro, that would I suspect put some interesting pressure on the North.

Just 2c(1.something p) worth

Northern Ireland really has nothing to do with this question of independence for Scotland. Unless they are going to completely re write the Good Friday Agreement and possibly start the conflict over again, then I don't see why Northern Ireland would come up in the debate.

The Good Friday Agreement is the answer to the national question in Northern Ireland.

[Deleted User]

mongdesade wrote: »

Unfortunately I believe if Scotland gained full independence, the next step, much like our own island in the 20's would be civil war, two tribes with divided loyalties, one to Rome the other to the Crown...
Thoughts ?

Very unlikely, the (highlanders) Gaelic peoples are mainly descended from Irish invaders & the (lowlanders) are mainly descended from the Vikings, neither of which would fight to remain in the union. All bets are off as to whether they would fight each other to gain control of the country, but unlikely.

woodoo

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement is the answer to the national question in Northern Ireland.

You mean that the people of NI will decide. Glad to see you would accept the GFA principles. So if the majority want a united Ireland in years to come you will accept that.

doomed

When it comes down to it I reckon they will vote against. The don't knows will nearly all vote no. Best hope for a yes vote is hardline Tory pm but they don't really have that yet.

KeithAFC

woodoo wrote: »

You mean that the people of NI will decide. Glad to see you would accept the GFA principles. So if the majority want a united Ireland in years to come you will accept that.

It has nothing to do with Scotland, that much is clear.

hatrickpatrick

My answer is not listed in your poll so I'll type in instead:

"I am a democrat, whatever the majority of the Scottish people want is what should happen with regard to independence."

woodoo

I think Scotland would do very well on its own. They have 2 major cities within an hour of each other. They could be the economic engine for the whole country.

InTheTrees

The union jack will look a little weird if they have to take the blue out of it.

jaffacakesyum

gurramok wrote: »

Where did you spring this conclusion from?

I didn't spring to any conclusion :rolleyes: I put it to ye good folk to see what your opinion on it was and suggested that perhaps eventually Scottish independence could lead to violence in the North, as more separatists up North may think "hey, we've been looking to break from Britain for yeeeears now and you give Scotland independence? No fair