Scottish independence

pixelburp wrote: »

That's the funny thing about boiling. You reduce ingredients and context to nothing, leaving you with a potentially thin, empty end-result. At the end of the day, you're trying to reduce the question of Scottish self-determination into a situation where there's some degree of emotional antagonism from the Scots side - without providing any evidence yourself that says the SNP are operating within that mood.



From a governmental PoV, see Pritti Patel spitballing that the UK withold food supplies - and effectively starve the Irish - into submission. Or Richard Littlejohn's own contributions - and the comments sections therein. Ditto other tabloids such as The Sun that often attacked Varadkar ala those now aimed at Sturgeon. You can split hairs about the degrees of racism, but it's not like "no blacks, no Irish ..." isn't a well-understood mantra from not that long ago in Anglo-Irish relations. It's not that hard to understand TBH: a former colonial power struggles to deal with historical targets of conquest on an equal cultural footing.

https://www.thejournal.ie/brexit-threat-food-shortages-ireland-4381228-Dec2018/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7287815/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Never-mind-Boris-Brexit.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5793527/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-not-hypnotise-Old-Bill-catch-criminals.html

You talk of "themmuns" yet by far the largest, loudest voices in all these discussions in the public domain has come from the red-tops, trying to "other" either the EU, the Irish or now, the Scots. There's a big difference between the friendly rivalry between two nations as you might find in sports, and open hostility as a cultural, social norm.



See, it's hard to discuss an issue when you just keep reducing the Scottish question down to snark about "themmuns". Like the Scots can't see past some degree of anglophobic agro unseen beyond impatience towards the lack of clearance for a 2nd referendum. Clearly, there's a long history of Scottish nationhood, being as it was a fully sovereign kingdom until incidents such as the merging of the crowns, or the Darian incident which bankrupted Scotland to the point of requiring English bailout (history buffs can correct me here).

But if you want to trade in reductions and simplicity, then it comes down to: Scotland has been given a certain degree of autonomy unseen in centuries(?). CoVid has also allowed it to further operate within its own parameters of existence as a single, individual entity.

Given that, should the Scottish people finally cast off from an arrangement that may not, on the face of it, always have their best interests at heart? Especially when the cultural mood often swings antagonistic against the Scots for daring to break away.

But if all you see is "themmuns", then debate with you is wasted TBH so I'm going to "agree to disagree" at this point.

pixelburp wrote: »

There's a fair debate about the extent any newspaper reflects any public mood, but equally, it seems self-evident that a protracted campaign from the redtops, against the EU and its institutions, informed much of the Brexit supporting rhetoric and support in 2016. That Othering then pivoted against the Irish once it was clear that Ireland had no intention to be on "Britain's side" once the negotiations started, and the obvious flaws in London's Brexit "strategy" revealed themselves.

But to my mind, England has a problem playing with others anyway, which, you know. That's fine, kinda understandable really: it spent many centuries at the top of the food-chain but unlike - say - Germany, has never once thought to self-reflect on its actions and status in the world today. As last year's incidents in Bristol showed, the shadow of its status as a slaving nation persists to this day.

In fact, to listen to the likes of noted public historian David Starkey, it's the reverse: that the British Empire was a net positive, that it was the precursor of the modern globalised world (obviously whether one considers globalisation a good thing in the first place, is a hot topic). Am actually struggling to find the full quote, as he also made some wildly racist comments too and that was the brunt of the criticism in the UK press.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You and I don’t often agree about much, Aegir, but I think this may be one of the occasions.


And all the English, Welsh and Irish see is the parliament of the United Kingdom (and the cabinet of the United Kingdom) devoting a huge proportion of its time and attention to matters of exclusively English concern. A large amount of the legislation considered and enacted at Westminster applies in England only, for example, so the time, resources and attention of the UK parliament are regularly devoted to business that only affects England. Same goes for the UK cabinet. The main reason there isn’t an English parliament and government, nor much demand for one, is because the English take it for granted that English concerns and priorities will monopolise and/or control the UK’s political institutions as and when required, and the UK will give England what it needs or wants. And they are right; it will.


Both the higher per capita tax take and the lower per capita spending are a consequence of the fact that incomes are higher in England, and wealth is concentrated there. Someone looking at this situation from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and seeing an injustice at work isn’t going to default to thinking that it’s the English who are the victims of this injustice.


This is true. And yet, such is the disparity between England on the one hand and all the other parts of the UK, taken together, on the other, that English representatives — and, as a result, English concerns and English interests— still totally dominate at Westminster.


Here we do differ. It’s demonstrable that English affairs and English concerns get far, far more attention at Westminster than do the affairs and concerns of all other parts of the UK combined. The English don‘t have to do anything in the least bit drastic to get themselves noticed; they are the constant preoccupation of Westminster. And the fact that they think they are neglected, to the extent that they do, just illustrates the extent to which they take their privilege for granted. If they don’t feel privileged enough, they experience that as unfair neglect.

What underlies all this, I think, is the massive disparity in the UK. The population of England is more than five times greater than the population of all other parts of the UK combined. When we look at the wealth, and therefore the power, of England versus other parts the disparity is even greater. This is a massively unbalanced union in which their numbers and wealth secure the English a hugely privileged position. The reason England has never sought devolution is because it has never needed to, in order to have its concerns addressed, its priorities accepted or its wishes implemented.

It seems to me that if the union is to survive it needs to be rebalanced. English devolution is a part of this, but it has to be matched at Westminster level with an acceptance that the UK’s political institutions must serve all parts of the UK, must give weight to the wishes and interests each part, and must not subordinate the interests of Scotland, Wales or NI to those of England merely because the English are more numerous or richer.

The English would likely experience this as a decline in status and, in truth, it would be; they would find themselves in a more equal, and therefore less privileged, position relative to other parts of teh UK . But it’s something they may have to embrace if they wish to save the union.

They may not wish to save the union, though. Or they may not wish to save it at such a price.