If you support Irish nationalism, why not Scottish nationalism?

MakeEmLaugh · 31-08-2014 09:37AM #1

Paul McCartney is the latest celebrity to weigh in on the 'No' side in the forthcoming referendum on whether Scotland should be an independent country. Which is fair enough.

It just strikes me as odd that McCartney penned the 1972 song 'Give Ireland Back to the Irish', which advocated full independence for all of Ireland. That song was in response to Bloody Sunday, of course, and held the view that Northern Ireland shouldn't be divided from the rest of the island, which is an understandable view.

But if, in some parallel universe, all of Ireland was still in the United Kingdom today, would the likes of McCartney, Mick Jagger, Stephen Hawking, Judi Dench et al sign a letter stating that they wanted it to stay within the United Kingdom in the case of an upcoming referendum?

It seems odd that you think one part of the British Isles (a term many people despise, but is universally recognised) should have broken off from the UK and become an independent country, but not another part.

Long Gone · 31-08-2014 09:47AM

One good reason for them not to give the SNP any more power is that Salmond is a right B***ix. His deputy is called Nicola Sturgeon. The whole lot of them are a bit fishy.

kneemos · 31-08-2014 09:47AM

We are separated by the Irish sea which makes a difference.
If we were part of the UK mainland and most people were in favour of staying as one then of course we should.

The Hill Billy · 31-08-2014 09:49AM

Do you actually mean "If you support Irish independence, why not Scottish independence?" There is a difference.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 31-08-2014 09:51AM

From my experiences abroad a good portion of this planet assume that the Union still exists (British this and British that) and when they find out it doesn't they ask why? They say things like does it not make sense for two small North Atlantic islands who share so much history and culture to have a link.

Considering how different we are from mainland Europeans you can see where that comes from. From my general experiences people out there have no real understanding of Irish history. I suppose they don't really give a fcuk :P:P

DeadHand · 31-08-2014 09:52AM

Things change, people's politics change, attitudes change. What a person believes 42 years ago may not be what they believe today. The Irish struggle had a large element of violence and human rights abuses therefore was far more emotive and compelling than Scotland's gentle, purely political contest.

Seperate, incomparable issues, in my opinion. From a selfish, cynical point of view I'd hope the Scots stay within the UK as I've heard an independent Scotland could be bad for Ireland economically. Beyond that, I'm mildly interested though ultimately indifferent.

bnt · 31-08-2014 09:54AM

Nationalism and Independence aren't the same thing. I'm Scottish, and fairly Nationalist in outlook, but if I could vote in the Referendum it would be No. There's a Nationalistic justification for Independence, but I don't think that's sufficient to make it work. The economic arguments aren't doing it for me.

The NI situation, on the other hand: no-one's suggesting that the six counties go independent, the idea is that they would be absorbed in to one country of 32 counties. No real comparison to the Scottish situation at all.

I'd go so far as to say that Nationalism is a red herring, a distraction from the real issues which are economic. It was a failed economy (after the Darien Scheme) that led to Scotland joining the UK in the first place, not a military defeat or anything like that.

Celly Smunt · 31-08-2014 10:22AM

Does Ireland need a competitor who's connected to mainland Britain?

Absolutely not,the last thing we need is an independent Scotland.

biko · 31-08-2014 10:38AM

I'm a nationalist, which means I oppose unnaturally constructed countries.
For UK and for many African countries where tensions run high because colonisers created countries on a whim with no regard for the peoples living there.

Cymry should leave too.

Celly Smunt · 31-08-2014 10:49AM

biko wrote: »

I'm a nationalist, which means I oppose unnaturally constructed countries.
For UK and for many African countries where tensions run high because colonisers created countries on a whim with no regard for the peoples living there.

Cymry should leave too.

I'm presuming you are intolerant to imperialism instead of colonialism.There's no such thing as an unnaturally constructed country,all countries are created through colonialism or invasion.

To say you only support the idea of a natural progression of a land through its people is a couple of thousand years out of date and almost verges on national socialism.

DeadHand · 31-08-2014 11:16AM

biko wrote: »

I'm a nationalist, which means I oppose unnaturally constructed countries.
For UK and for many African countries where tensions run high because colonisers created countries on a whim with no regard for the peoples living there.

Cymry should leave too.

All countries were constructed unnaturally.

Yours is a noble philosophy but where does it stop? Should Istanbul and most of Turkey be returned to the Greeks? The Great Plains returned to the Native Americans or should the Confederacy be reinstated in the South put down, as it was, unnaturally?

Just in Europe alone and off the top of my head is it practical and economical to grant independence to Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque country, Britanny, Wales, Corsica, Wallonia, Sicily and many more?

I'd agree fully that nations deserve to choose their own destiny and, within reason and if desired, their own states but it seems to me that your philosophy brought to full fruition would leave the world a politically and economically unviable, chaotic patchwork of statelets, city states, tribal domains, puppet states and failed projects.

DeadHand · 31-08-2014 11:17AM

biko wrote: »

I'm a nationalist, which means I oppose unnaturally constructed countries.
For UK and for many African countries where tensions run high because colonisers created countries on a whim with no regard for the peoples living there.

Cymry should leave too.

All countries were constructed unnaturally.

Yours is a noble philosophy but where does it stop? Should Istanbul and most of Turkey be returned to the Greeks? The Great Plains returned to the Native Americans or should the Confederacy be reinstated in the South put down, as it was, unnaturally?

Just in Europe alone and off the top of my head is it practical and economical to grant independence to Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque country, Britanny, Wales, Corsica, Wallonia, Sicily and many more?

I'd agree fully that nations deserve to choose their own destiny and, within reason and if desired, their own states but it seems to me that your philosophy brought to full fruition would leave the world a politically and economically unviable, chaotic patchwork of statelets, city states, tribal domains, puppet states and failed projects.

biko · 31-08-2014 11:20AM

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I'm presuming you are intolerant to imperialism instead of colonialism.There's no such thing as an unnaturally constructed country,all countries are created through colonialism or invasion.

To say you only support the idea of a natural progression of a land through its people is a couple of thousand years out of date and almost verges on national socialism.

Interesting, can you elaborate on why you think I am almost a nazi?

Frank Lee Midere · 31-08-2014 11:23AM

Celly Smunt wrote: »

I'm presuming you are intolerant to imperialism instead of colonialism.There's no such thing as an unnaturally constructed country,all countries are created through colonialism or invasion.

To say you only support the idea of a natural progression of a land through its people is a couple of thousand years out of date and almost verges on national socialism.

It verges on most anti-colonialism. If nation states aren't legit, and don't have links to the nation then there is nothing wrong with imperialism. Which is just arbitrary lines on a map.

In fact your philosophy - states are arbitrary lines - would justify a Nazi invasion of Poland. Poland the State (as opposed to the nation) didn't exist at the start of WW I. Russia bordered Germany.

Why not restore that?

And what do you mean by a couple of thousands of years? The idea of nation states is a few hundred years old.

MakeEmLaugh · 31-08-2014 11:30AM

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Do you actually mean "If you support Irish independence, why not Scottish independence?" There is a difference.

Nationalism is still applicable here. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'nationalism' as 'Advocacy of political independence for a particular country'.

Barely There · 31-08-2014 11:38AM

biko wrote: »

I'm a nationalist, which means I oppose unnaturally constructed countries.

That'd be every country.

Frank Lee Midere · 31-08-2014 11:46AM

Barely There wrote: »

That'd be every country.

No it isn't. How do we know when states are not unnaturally constructed? Simple. They have no independence movements.

Sociology students are about this morning.

Celly Smunt · 31-08-2014 11:54AM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

No it isn't. How do we know when states are not unnaturally constructed? Simple. They have no independence movements.

Sociology students are about this morning.

A country that emerges from an unnatural state is still an unnaturally emerging nation as the state isn't 100% indigenous I.e every country.

SpaceTime · 31-08-2014 11:57AM

Totally different set of circumstances really when you compare Ireland in the late 19th and early 20th century with Scotland in 2014.

Ireland's independence struggle basically comes down to gross economic and social mismanagement and abuse by a 19th century British government.

You'd the Act of Union in 1800 and a massive famine barely 40 years later.
This was while Ireland was a province of the wealthiest country on earth.

On top of that you'd a long history of religious based oppression and efforts to wipe out cultural and linguistic differences.

You also had the Navigation Acts from the 1650s to the point that Ireland joined the UK. These legally prevented competition with UK industries and direct exports from Ireland.

So nationalism aside the Irish had a lot to be very angry about in pure economic and social policy sense.

The UK in 2014 is a modern, socially progressive, rights based society that has very little in common with the UK in 1890-1921 when Ireland's independence movement peaked.

I don't really think the Scots have the kind of strong argument for leaving the UK that we would have had in the past.

Also the Northern Ireland issue is dramatically different to Scotland. Northern Ireland had a totally bonkers devolved administration that ran the area along sectarian lines into the 1970s. The British Government idiotically turned a blind eye to it until it had basically caused complete chaos and long term damage in NI.

Had NI functioned like a normal democratic state with genuine equal rights from 1921 to 1970s it's very likely that no serious conflict would have arisen. Yeah there'd have been bad blood and annoyance over partition but I don't think you'd have seen the emergence of armed groups and extreme violence.

The comparisons between Scotland's situation now and Ireland at key junctures simply aren't there.

Any argument that Scotland has is really about gaining more economic and political autonomy and control of oil/gas resources. It's not going to dramatically improve human rights or the freedoms that Scots already have.

I can fully appreciate why a large % of Scots might vote Yes but I just don't think the comparison with Ireland in the past is very valid.

DeadHand · 31-08-2014 12:03PM

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

No it isn't. How do we know when states are not unnaturally constructed? Simple. They have no independence movements.

Sociology students are about this morning.

Every country was built on foundations of the bones of the people who were there first. The Geals weren't the first people in Ireland. The Angles weren't the first in England. States and countries are inherently unnatural constructions.

EunanMac · 31-08-2014 12:07PM

We swapped gangsters with British accents for gangsters with Irish accents, other than that I don't see much difference.

losthorizon · 31-08-2014 12:10PM

Don't really care what they decide tbh. Its up to them.

Karl Stein · 31-08-2014 12:50PM

I think England should leave the UK.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 31-08-2014 12:55PM

It's almost absurd to even ask the question? Firstly I assume the OP means independence rather than nationalism, as the difference is huge. Secondly, what's it to us anymore than any other region in any other state? Those in Europe can have a slight impact, granted, but only in passing. I think the fact that we pick up so much British media here leads us at times to think that UK affairs any more important to us than those in other European countries?

kingchess · 31-08-2014 12:59PM

Karl Stein wrote: »

I think England should leave the UK.

or at the very least have their own devolved Parliament,

Karl Stein · 31-08-2014 01:02PM

England should leave the UK and London should leave England and move in with Paris. This sneaking around behind each other's backs helps no one in the long run.

Manach · 31-08-2014 01:06PM

My own 2c, best of luck to the Scots which every way it goes as the process is being done rationally and democratically and not rushed / tainted by violence.

Jawgap · 31-08-2014 01:09PM

Different times and different contexts.

I think Scottish independence, like a unified Ireland, is a good idea in theory, but the practicalities of the changes involved in separating out two modern integrated economies will always defeat the aspiration.

It will be defeated by uncertainty rather than any grand desire on the part of a majority of the population to remain as part of the UK.

Plus I reckon the Spanish ( and to a lesser extent the French) will want to make sure that in the EU context the Scots get as hard a time as possible so as to dissuade the independence movements active in other EU member states.

kingchess · 31-08-2014 01:21PM

Scottish desire for Independence=Scottish nationalism= bad,and Scottish desire to stay in the UK=British nationalism=good. that is the impression I am getting anyway

Tail Docker · 31-08-2014 02:09PM

Scotland looking for independence is like a teenager divorcing their parents. They'll get sense eventually. Meanwhile, Mammy and Daddy will indulge the little upstart and pay for their car insurance, rent etc..like happens in the North.

Balmed Out · 31-08-2014 02:19PM

Manach wrote: »

My own 2c, best of luck to the Scots which every way it goes as the process is being done rationally and democratically and not rushed / tainted by violence.

Agree except the rushed part. Currency, EU membership etc should have been agreed issues before any date was set for the vote.

If you support Irish nationalism, why not Scottish nationalism?

If you support Irish nationalism, why not Scottish nationalism? 49 votes

Comments