Scottish Independence?

darkman2

Flex wrote:

Of course we are similar ethnically to other peoples of western Europe. Racially we are different in that we are mainly Celtic (and some Norse.... and whatever else) whereas they are mainly Anglo-Saxon (and some Roman, Norse, Germanic tribes, people of other races who emmigrated to Britain from the British empire... and whatever else). The Priteni who settled in some places around Ireland and some places around Britain and some places around Europe really dont have too much relevance today because of the fact that very few (if any) would regard themselves as being Priteni, or speak or learn their language, etc. It doesnt make sense to have a desire to be ruled by another country on the fact that 3000 years ago a similar group of people who largely dont exist anymore in any way, shape or form inhabited some area within both countries. BTW, I thought the Celts came to Ireland around 2500 years ago, so I doubt we were the same people 2000 years ago.

As for economic ties, sure Britain made alot of money out of Ireland over the last few centuries and at the time Britain was ruled by the Romans I believe a good bit of trade went on, I dont really know what good political ties came out of it though. As I said, imo, British involvement in Ireland has overall been a bad thing. What do the scholars say?

I wouldnt even entertain this because the reason complete independence occured is we were treated like crap for the preceding generations. The fact it occured violently is regrettable but the British were never just going to leave. The one thing that will always mean Ireland can never have a realtionship of equals, certainly not politically anyway, with the UK is the North. There is no other country in the world that has part of its territory occupied that has excellent relations with the occupier. This idea of excepting the north as some seperate state is tbh farcical. Sry for goin off point somewhat. I wonder will they partition Scotland?

murphaph

I'm sorry but your idea that the Celts arrived and changed us ethnically and later invaders changed the british to something different is now regarded as incorrect. Modern anthropologists disagree with this old school way of thinking. They now accept that the native prythonic peoples of these islands had interaction with what people might call 'the celts' (many anthropologists refuse to even define what a 'celt' is as they were not just one tribe like say, the saxons) and that their art and crafts and indeed customs were simply adopted by the peoples here, rather than mass migrations of 'celts' to Ireland and Britain, followed by mass migrations of angles and saxons to crush the 'ancient britons'. It simply didn't go like that.

Remember, for at least a hundred years people firmly believed that cro-magnon man evolved out of Neanderthal man, only when they found remains of both dated to the same time in the same cave in Spain did they realise that they existed at the same time and cro-magnon man simply prospered and neaderthal man died out for whatever reasons.This realisation only came about a decde or so ago-I still have old school books showing the evolution.

The old notions of celtic invasions replacing the ancient peoples of these islands has largely been debunked and DNA swabs in Britain (whch has been exposed to even more inward migrations than us!) have shown that in large swathes of that island that people's ethnicity is largely the same as the prythonic people that have lived here for millenia.

I'm not trying to say we're british or any other label, just that we did enjoy excellent relations across these islands for thousands of years. I can't but wonder did religion (christianity) not have a large part in dividing the peoples of these islands.

darkman2

murphaph wrote:

I can't but wonder did religion (christianity) not have a large part in dividing the peoples of these islands.

I was listenening to an expert on Northern Affairs on the radio this week and he said that what divides the ppl in the North, and indeed these islands is not Religion but territory. Religion is just the most conveinient way to express it.

magick

I can't but wonder did religion (christianity) not have a large part in dividing the peoples of these islands.

yup blame Henry VIII

kittex

I think ScottishDanny has put it very well.
Most people I know here would have backed independence had the Scottish Parliament not been a bit of a farce in certain issues.

Around the time of the parliament launch, the majority supported a slight rise in income tax in exchange for independence.

However since then, the building over-spend, the quango corruption, the cover-ups and various other back-handed shenanigans have made the Scottish people feel that the additional cost of independence could be an awful lot more than estimated.

Basically I think they want the Executive to prove itself as competent and valuable first.
For this reason, I think the SNP are doing themselves no favours by promising fast action should they be elected.

The parliament is achieving positive things for Scotland and I read recently EU grant applications from Scotland have risen since devolution.

flogen

I think if Charles takes the throne in the UK after the death of Elizabeth you'll see Republican sentiments rising, even in England. At that point I think both Canada and Australia will begin to discuss pulling out of the Commonwealth, and both Wales and Scotland (not NI though) becoming a bit more vocal on their independence.
The reason being that Elizabeth is a much-liked head of state, Charles will never be.

lostexpectation

its strange and off topic, but the queen seems to be associated with war and the 'british blitz spirit', has charles been associated at all with the UK's current wars, it looks like his sons maybe which might increase their importance.

Dirk Gently

lostexpectation wrote:

its strange and off topic, but the queen seems to be associated with war and the 'british blitz spirit', has charles been associated at all with the UK's current wars, it looks like his sons maybe which might increase their importance.

Well he is hated by republicans up north for his role as Colonel in chief of certain British army units which they claim were involved in dodgy goings on up there. (Shoot to kill, kidnappings, assassinations, political sabotage) He's done his fair share of navy service too.

The Prince is Colonel-in-Chief of the following:

British Army
1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards
Royal Dragoon Guards
The 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment
Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)
King's Regiment
Parachute Regiment <----I think these are the bold boys republicans have a problem with (well most problem with)
Royal Gurkha Rifles
Army Air Corps
Canadian Forces
The Royal Canadian Dragoons
Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians)
The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada
The Royal Regiment of Canada
The Royal Winnipeg Rifles
The Toronto Scottish Regiment (Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's Own)
Australian Army
Royal Australian Armoured Corps

A Dub in Glasgo

Two of those stand out for their sheer brutality in Ireland... The Paras and the Blackwatch. Interestingly for this thread, one of them is a Scottish regiment.

zuma

What dirty dealings have the Black Watch been involved in?

LordSutch

Can somebody pleas tell me what is meant by "Eight hundred years of oppression by the English" ?

I am truly fed-up hearing this glib comment made all too often, both in this thread and others.........................

As far as I am aware, we were doing very nicely as part of the UK prior to 1922, and wheather you dispute that or not, were we really oppressed, tortured, & badly treated the "English" for the 800 years prior to 1922 ~ or Not?

And where do the Normans (french), Vikings, Norse, etc fit into the story? were they also our oppressors? or was it just those nasty English people that oppressed us?
and if so, is that why we hate the English so much ?
Or is the whole "English" oppression thing a Republican Myth ?

zuma

I also am fed up with this 800 year of oppression stuff.....but with Cromwell commiting his ethnic cleansing(to hell or to connacht!) and the Black and Tans wreacking havoc....people will remember the bad times rather than the good/ordinary for a hell of a long time.

samb

flogen wrote:

I think if Charles takes the throne in the UK after the death of Elizabeth you'll see Republican sentiments rising, even in England. At that point I think both Canada and Australia will begin to discuss pulling out of the Commonwealth, and both Wales and Scotland (not NI though) becoming a bit more vocal on their independence.
The reason being that Elizabeth is a much-liked head of state, Charles will never be.

Good point, my dad for one is an English republican. They will only increase in numbers when charles is king. Hopefully he will be for a long time, so the royal family becomes even more of a joke.
Then again if they don't hold power, maybe its just a valuabel tourist attraction now.

seamus

ArthurF wrote:

Can somebody pleas tell me what is meant by "Eight hundred years of oppression by the English"

Worried about the strong Norman presence in Ireland, King Henry II conquered Ireland in 1171.

However, it wasn't an overly tense occupation until the 1700s when the penal laws were introduced, and were followed by the plantations. The Irish were always treated as second-class citizens, but no less than the peasants in England were. So if people want to be a little more accurate, they could say "800 years of occupation, 300 years of oppression", but it doesn't really have the same ring to it.

mcgarnicle

ArthurF wrote:

Can somebody pleas tell me what is meant by "Eight hundred years of oppression by the English" ?

I am truly fed-up hearing this glib comment made all too often, both in this thread and others.........................

As far as I am aware, we were doing very nicely as part of the UK prior to 1922, and wheather you dispute that or not, were we really oppressed, tortured, & badly treated the "English" for the 800 years prior to 1922 ~ or Not?

And where do the Normans (french), Vikings, Norse, etc fit into the story? were they also our oppressors? or was it just those nasty English people that oppressed us?
and if so, is that why we hate the English so much ?
Or is the whole "English" oppression thing a Republican Myth ?

Are you serious? If you don't know the answers to these questions you were obviously unconscious for your entire education and any attempt to clarify the matter now on an internet board would be a waste of time.

LordSutch

Post #45 goes someway to answering my questions, 300 hundred years is nearer the mark then, and the peasants in England were also treated the same way as the Irish peasants ~ that makes more sence.

I just dont buy the "800 Hundred year thing" for one minute!

darkman2

ArthurF wrote:

Can somebody pleas tell me what is meant by "Eight hundred years of oppression by the English" ?

I am truly fed-up hearing this glib comment made all too often, both in this thread and others.........................

As far as I am aware, we were doing very nicely as part of the UK prior to 1922, and wheather you dispute that or not, were we really oppressed, tortured, & badly treated the "English" for the 800 years prior to 1922 ~ or Not?

And where do the Normans (french), Vikings, Norse, etc fit into the story? were they also our oppressors? or was it just those nasty English people that oppressed us?
and if so, is that why we hate the English so much ?
Or is the whole "English" oppression thing a Republican Myth ?

To deny Ireland was oppressed would be to say gaining independence was wrong. Do you support that view?

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

Post #45 goes someway to answering my questions, 300 hundred years is nearer the mark then, and the peasants in England were also treated the same way as the Irish peasants ~ that makes more sence.

I really dont see how saying since the British treated their own lot bad, it was ok that they came here and treated us as bad. Its like saying that its ok that the guy up the road abuses my family because he treats his own family bad aswel.

Flex

darkman2 wrote:

To deny Ireland was oppressed would be to say gaining independence was wrong. Do you support that view?

You'd be surprised who many people on this board would support that view point.

darkman2

Let us see them say it and state their reasons why then:rolleyes:

LordSutch

I have still to hear compelling facts as to how we were oppressed by the "English" for 800 years!

I still dont buy it for several reasons, and as regards gaining our independence (at what cost)?

I know that these issues have been done to death on this Board, but seeing as the 800 year thing has been thrown into this thread by another poster, I think its time to hear the facts about those nasty English people.

Still waiting...........................all facts welcome.

As regards independence, I think it was achieved in the most divisive and damaging way possible (thats my view) and as I have said in other related threads, we should have gone the Home Rule route, thus avoiding the 80 years (post independence) of being an Economic backwater!

Looking at RTE archive footage of Dublin, Limerick & Cork on a recent documentary, one couldnt help but notice the Union Flags hanging in O'Connell St in Dublin, in Cork, and the array of Union Flags being waved by the public on the visit of Queen Victoria in Dun Laoghaire! and then, virtually overnight, we went from being an integral part of the UK to being fervently Anti-British (Anti-English)? whilst our kin folk up North & across the water remained fervently British! with Northeners becomming even more British & entrenched as a direct result of our rapid change of heart.

My view of the whole relationship between Ireland and Britain boils down to the fact that we are all related in one way or another to the English, Scots, and Welsh, and even my family has Irish (obviously) Scottish & English connections, and so do many thousand other people here in Ireland, and the same goes for the rest of the British isles, Many scots have English blood & vice versa so why CUT all connections with the North & Britain (post 1922)? thats what I am saying, and then we leave the Commonwealth too . . .

Independence is one thing, but blaming the English for all our ills over the previous eight hundred years really needs to be backed-up with facts & figures. I suspect the truth is very, very complicated, with English landlords, Irish Landlords, Normans, the Ruling Classes all involved in the so called "Oppression" of this island, so to blame the English just seems trite and offensive to me (& no doubt to a lot of decent, law abiding English people).

darkman2

ArthurF wrote:

I have still to hear compelling facts as to how we were oppressed by the "English" for 800 years!

I still dont buy it for several reasons, and as regards gaining our independence (at what cost)?

I know that these issues have been done to death on this Board, but seeing as the 800 year thing has been thrown into this thread by another poster, I think its time to hear the facts about those nasty English people.

Still waiting...........................all facts welcome.

As regards independence, I think it was achieved in the most divisive and damaging way possible (thats my view) and as I have said in other related threads, we should have gone the Home Rule route, thus avoiding the 80 years (post independence) of being an Economic backwater!

Looking at RTE archive footage of Dublin, Limerick & Cork on a recent documentary, one couldnt help but notice the Union Flags hanging in O'Connell St in Dublin, in Cork, and the array of Union Flags being waved by the public on the visit of Queen Victoria in Dun Laoghaire! and then, virtually overnight, we went from being an integral part of the UK to being fervently Anti-British (Anti-English)? whilst our kin folk up North & across the water remained fervently British! with Northeners becomming even more British & entrenched as a direct result of our rapid change of heart.

My view of the whole relationship between Ireland and Britain boils down to the fact that we are all related in one way or another to the English, Scots, and Welsh, and even my family has Irish (obviously) Scottish & English connections, and so do many thousand other people here in Ireland, and the same goes for the rest of the British isles, Many scots have English blood & vice versa so why CUT all connections with the North & Britain (post 1922)? thats what I am saying, and then we leave the Commonwealth too . . .

Independence is one thing, but blaming the English for all our ills over the previous eight hundred years really needs to be backed-up with facts & figures. I suspect the truth is very, very complicated, with English landlords, Irish Landlords, Normans, the Ruling Classes all involved in the so called "Oppression" of this island, so to blame the English just seems trite and offensive to me (& no doubt to a lot of decent, law abiding English people).

This country was oppressed. Ive not the time now to give details but I will do tomorrow.

ScottishDanny

A lot of this seems to be straying from the original thread (going back 4500 years?), I reckon you can be for independence for your own country without being anti-English. Its also far too easy to blame the English for everything. I'd also like to point out that in 1918 the Shinners won a massive majority in the General Election (73 out of 105 seats) but their democratic mandate was ignored by the British Government. I reckon there comes a time when you have to draw a line and say OK lots of bad things have happened, thats the past - lets look to the future and change it for the better.

LordSutch

Well said ScottishDanny, there does come a time when you have to draw a line in the sand ~ otherwise we might be blaming the "English" for all our ills in another 800 years time...................................

Getting back to the original theme of this thread, will Scotland leave the UK in the forseeable future ~ NO, I dont see any sign of it at all in the media or anywhere else for that matter ~ Not even a hint of them leaving!

अधिनायक

Going back to the OP's question:

flogen wrote:

So would 30% be about right, or is it more/less? Anyone know?

An April 2006 poll by YouGov found 46% in favour, 39% against and 15% undecided. When you compare that to the 1918 election in which Sinn Féin won the majority of Irish seats in Westminster, an obvious difference in support for independence emerges between our two countries.

Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell's decision not to support England in the world cup was controversial and provoked many accusations of bigotry - an unthinkable reaction in Ireland.

A Dub in Glasgo

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

When you compare that to the 1918 election in which Sinn Féin won the majority of Irish seats in Westminster, an obvious difference in support for independence emerges between our two countries.

The execution of the Rising leaders and the internment of hundreds of people may have something to do with that

Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell's decision not to support England in the world cup was controversial and provoked many accusations of bigotry

Jack McConnell is in something of a bind. His masters in the Labour Party were at pains to puff their chests out and proclaim their Britishness to help Gordon Brown become PM. Jack has supported the unionist standpoint of Britishness and yet he cannot be seen to support England in the World Cup. The SNP might start picking up votes from Labour voters! The majority reaction has not been accusing him of bigotry from what I can see in Scotland. In fact, the majority of people I know are 100% behind him!

an unthinkable reaction in Ireland.

Not so sure that the reaction is unthinkable in Ireland, look on boards for some local guidance.

ScottishDanny

I agree with A Dub in Glasgow, the more you repress a people the more likely they are to act in the extreme politically (Look at Bloody Sunday 1972 - that ended the moderate Civil Rights movement in one day).
Gordon Brown came off with this idea of replacing poppy day with 'British Day'. You can't just invent a brand new tradition to suit party policy!
Scottish Labour have very different problems than English Labour. They are in a coalition with the Scottish Liberals, the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party are no threat at all and they can lose ground to SNP and the Scottish Socialists (a number of Trade Unions are now aligned with the SSP and not Labour).
And its not Britain in the World Cup its England (on merit), I wonder why they don't approve of Scots not supporting their country, they seem convinced they'll win it every 4 years anyway

A Dub in Glasgo

ScottishDanny wrote:

the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party are no threat at all and they can lose ground to SNP and the Scottish Socialists (a number of Trade Unions are now aligned with the SSP and not Labour).

The SSP are in the middle of throwing all that good work away with their current bitter feud that will disintegrate the party. I can't see the SSP eating into the Labour vote from now on.

Unpossible

Can someone explain the following to me?
SSP (Im guessing Scottish Socialist Party?)
SNP (Scottish National Party?)
English Republican (I have never heard these words together before)

Also what parties are pro independance? Are the unionists anything like the ones up north?

Victor

Unpossible wrote:

Can someone explain the following to me?

No

SSP (Im guessing Scottish Socialist Party?)

Yes.

SNP (Scottish National Party?)

Yes.

English Republican (I have never heard these words together before)

English people who want to abolish (or profoundly restrict) the monarchy, just like Australian republicans. They exist.

Realise that for Irish people, the words republican and nationalist have become twisted in their meaning. A republican is someone who wants a republic and not a monarchy. A nationalist is someone who wants a independent nation state.

Also what parties are pro independance? Are the unionists anything like the ones up north?

Essentially the SNP. Others will have nationalist leanings, especially in Labour. Labour can't come out as anti-independence, if they did they would lose a lot of votes. However, if the Scottish Labour MPs leave Westminster, that takes a huge chunk out of Labour's majority. SO Labour has gone for Independence Lite - Devolution.

The Conservatives / Tories are strictly speaking 'Conservative and Unionist' and ironicly, while they sit together are semi-independent parties, indeed the Ulster Unionists are independent and at least in theory compete with the Northern Ireland branch of the Conservative Party.

http://www.scottishconservatives.com/
http://www.conservativesni.com/