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

Scottish Independence - NI implications

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Broxi_Bear_Eire
    Registered Users Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    OS119 wrote: »
    Alopex wrote: »
    nor even the commonwealth. probably not even the pound

    indeed, if you listen to SNP personalities talking about a post-independance Scotland you hear about a 'semi-detached' Scotland - they don't seem to be very keen on seperate defence/foreign policies or armed forces, possibly retaining a 'British' passport, and certainly a dual monarchy.

    now, some of this is probably mood music, but anyone who believes that the SNP - and an SNP lead independant Scotland - is going to be home to frothy-mouthed, swivell-eyed loons who look to SF as being their natural partners across the sea needs to get their meds looked at.

    personally i wouldn't be that surprised to see, after Scottish independance, the disolving of the UK in its current form, with everyone going their own way - whether they like it or not - with a loose federation between Scotland and England and Wales forming at some time after that.

    the writing is on the wall for NI as far as the UK is concerned, nobody wants to be responsible for it, nobody wants to pay for it - what they do after the UK ceases to be the governing power is, i'm afraid, a matter of absolute indifference to pretty much everyone in the UK, barring perhaps parts of Glasgow...
    Actually I think the muppets in certain parts of Glasgow from both sides of the fence would run and hide behind there Mammy's apron strings just at the thought of maybe having to get involved in NI. These morons are good at singing songs and that's about it


  • Options
    #63
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No. In a united Ireland, they would have far more of a say in their political affairs than they do at present. Northern Unionists currently hold 8 seats out of 650 in Westminster.

    In a United Ireland - there would be two future options. The first is a central parliament, where Unionists would have about 40+ seats. The Dáil is substantially smaller than Westminster with 166 seats. Assuming it grows to about 230 to accommodate the northern parties... the DUP would have more than 10 times more power (15-20%) than they currently have in Westminster (1.2%).

    The alternative would be to have a federal system, which is cited as a very workable format - and one Unionists would probably favour over a single house.

    In anycase - they would have substantially more say in either case.
    But that representation at Westminster from Unionists would mean a lot more to us than say having a larger say in a United Ireland.


  • Options
    #64
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,022 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    There's no doubt about it IMO. If Scotland leaves the UK then NI's days as a subsidised region of the UK are probably numbered. The English won't keep paying for it as it has no strategic value to them.

    The folks in NI will have to learn to get along regardless as the RoI electorate won't take them if there's a chance of it costing us vast sums of money (which we don't have) and if they have to go it alone as an independent state then they'll need to attract FDI en masse to replace the (largely fake) UK public sector jobs which will be repatriated to England or done away with.

    No FDI will go there if it's a hotspot of violence and instability.


  • Options
    #65
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    And Unionists are not willing to pay for a independent NI, this topic crept up before here on boards. Massive tax hikes to pay for a possible independent unstable state will not go down well with Unionism, money in their pockets is what counts over the rhetoric of patriotism. Their only solution is to compromise with nationalists, more so than now.


  • Options
    #66
    glic71rods46t0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    But that representation at Westminster from Unionists would mean a lot more to us than say having a larger say in a United Ireland.
    You could only mean that at a symbolic level - on a practical level, representation in Westminster delivers absolutely nothing. David Cameron is pushing through cuts that are affecting NI much more than any other region under Westminsters control.
    As other posters have said, NI's future prosperity is dependant on getting as much FDI as possible to replace the disappearing public service jobs. Aligning with ROI is going to make economic sense for NI.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No. In a united Ireland, they would have far more of a say in their political affairs than they do at present. Northern Unionists currently hold 8 seats out of 650 in Westminster.

    In a United Ireland - there would be two future options. The first is a central parliament, where Unionists would have about 40+ seats. The Dáil is substantially smaller than Westminster with 166 seats. Assuming it grows to about 230 to accommodate the northern parties... the DUP would have more than 10 times more power (15-20%) than they currently have in Westminster (1.2%).

    The alternative would be to have a federal system, which is cited as a very workable format - and one Unionists would probably favour over a single house.

    In anycase - they would have substantially more say in either case.

    They have over 51% of the say in Stormont.


  • Options
    #68
    Lonesome Boatman
    Registered Users Posts: 439 ✭✭Lonesome Boatman


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    A lot of Unionists would be OK with it. We have our own flag which represents that. I suppose a lot of Unionists are a bit like that deep down. Anything but a 32 county Socialist Republic.

    that sounds like a childs irrational fear of the dark


  • Options
    #69
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    What has Scotland got to do with Northern Ireland? And Northern Ireland is a bit different in many ways. One of them being that people would fight it with arms. Something which I doubt would happen in Scotland.

    People would fight? Nah I don't think so, the days of fighting on this island are long gone. Now of course you might have small groups of armed muppets, but they would be of no consequence in reality. The days of Loyalist bully boys and their hollow threats are long gone thankfully.


  • Options
    #70
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    They have over 51% of the say in Stormont.

    for the moment.

    anyone who places their strategic interest in winning this or that election, and having reasonably competant politicians who can successfully manage a '50%+1' situation indefinately is an idiot.

    personally i wouldn't be surprised to see, in a UI, the northern parties form a informal, un-talked about bloc within a 32 county Dail - sure there'll be some buggering about, with SF being more 'Southern than the Southerners' and the Unionists being obnoxious, but eventually they'll settle down and discover that they have an awful lot of interests in common given the geography, history (having had the NHS for example) and socially conservative veiws.

    they will probably have more power in those circumstances that either in the hyper-moderated Stormont, or being irrelevent at Westminster.


  • Options
    #71
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    that sounds like a childs irrational fear of the dark
    Not at all. Plenty of valid reasons for Unionists and Loyalists to reject a United Ireland and they would even go down the Ulster nationalist route.
    People would fight? Nah I don't think so, the days of fighting on this island are long gone. Now of course you might have small groups of armed muppets, but they would be of no consequence in reality. The days of Loyalist bully boys and their hollow threats are long gone thankfully.
    In a United Ireland? You would have fighting. You have thousands of people who feel the Dublin government doesn't represent them, you would have an Irish army and an Irish police force which would be created from Dublin and rule all of Ulster. So you would have a number of key problems for the loyal people of Ulster.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    glic71rods46t0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    They have over 51% of the say in Stormont.
    No they don't. Cross community support is required for the real decisions.
    So I wonder what the new "cultural history" of unionism will be with the breakup of the UK. Ulster Scots will be an even more curious concept than it is now.
    We are of Scottish ancestry therefore we want to be in union with the english?


  • Options
    #73
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    OS119 wrote: »
    indeed, if you listen to SNP personalities talking about a post-independance Scotland you hear about a 'semi-detached' Scotland - they don't seem to be very keen on seperate defence/foreign policies or armed forces, possibly retaining a 'British' passport, and certainly a dual monarchy.

    now, some of this is probably mood music, but anyone who believes that the SNP - and an SNP lead independant Scotland - is going to be home to frothy-mouthed, swivell-eyed loons who look to SF as being their natural partners across the sea needs to get their meds looked at.

    personally i wouldn't be that surprised to see, after Scottish independance, the disolving of the UK in its current form, with everyone going their own way - whether they like it or not - with a loose federation between Scotland and England and Wales forming at some time after that.

    the writing is on the wall for NI as far as the UK is concerned, nobody wants to be responsible for it, nobody wants to pay for it - what they do after the UK ceases to be the governing power is, i'm afraid, a matter of absolute indifference to pretty much everyone in the UK, barring perhaps parts of Glasgow...

    Nail and head. The Scots want to have their cake and eat it. Independence but with the monarchy (and Royal Naval bases) and various other British institutions retained. I think that if they go down that road the British/English government should cut their links, remove their bases and introduce border controls and let the Scots look after themselves. The Balkanisation of Britain serves nobody's interests except the enemies of Britain of which there are many worldwide.


  • Options
    #74
    glic71rods46t0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Not at all. Plenty of valid reasons for Unionists and Loyalists to reject a United Ireland and they would even go down the Ulster nationalist route.


    In a United Ireland? You would have fighting. You have thousands of people who feel the Dublin government doesn't represent them, you would have an Irish army and an Irish police force which would be created from Dublin and rule all of Ulster. So you would have a number of key problems for the loyal people of Ulster.
    Most of Ulster is majority nationalist. Its the "loyal" people east of the bann who would have the problems. I guess a lot of them would get the boat though.


  • Options
    #75
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    Not at all. Plenty of valid reasons for Unionists and Loyalists to reject a United Ireland and they would even go down the Ulster nationalist route.


    In a United Ireland? You would have fighting. You have thousands of people who feel the Dublin government doesn't represent them, you would have an Irish army and an Irish police force which would be created from Dublin and rule all of Ulster. So you would have a number of key problems for the loyal people of Ulster.


    There is no doubt that Ulster Unionists would not like it, but the notion that there would be any kind of widespread violence is laughable.

    It would take years to organise an effective armed campaign, and would require widespread support within the Unionist community for violence.

    Those who would want to go down the violence path would have neither the time or support.

    In reality what you would have is a handfull of muppets who would go out to die for Queen and country, and quickly get themselves locked up, while the rest of the Unionist community got down to the task of negioating the best deal possible to secure their position within a UI.


  • Options
    #76
    stewie01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭stewie01


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Nail and head. The Scots want to have their cake and eat it. Independence but with the monarchy (and Royal Naval bases) and various other British institutions retained. I think that if they go down that road the British/English government should cut their links, remove their bases and introduce border controls and let the Scots look after themselves. The Balkanisation of Britain serves nobody's interests except the enemies of Britain of which there are many worldwide.


    your forgetting one thing, if the English cut there links. Scotland will own the oil, fishing rights off their coasts. so pull out the naval bases etc, Scotland, economically, will do just fine without them.

    Didn't BP just find a 4.2billion oil reserve off the Scottish coast? i wonder which country will profit more off that find?


  • Options
    #77
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    stewie01 wrote: »
    your forgetting one thing, if the English cut there links. Scotland will own the oil, fishing rights off their coasts. so pull out the naval bases etc, Scotland, economically, will do just fine without them.

    Didn't BP just find a 4.2billion oil reserve off the Scottish coast? i wonder which country will profit more off that find?

    what oil?

    how long do you think the tax take of a theoretical 4.2 bn oil find will support the Scottish welfare state - a month, two perhaps?

    what fishing rights - are they like the Irish fishing rights so well used by the French, Spanish and Portugese fishing fleets?


  • Options
    #78
    stewie01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭stewie01


    OS119 wrote: »
    what oil?

    how long do you think the tax take of a theoretical 4.2 bn oil find will support the Scottish welfare state - a month, two perhaps?

    what fishing rights - are they like the Irish fishing rights so well used by the French, Spanish and Portugese fishing fleets?

    what oil??? maybe look it up before you jump on my post,or is that to hard to do?

    edit-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15292651

    tax take??? well maybe instead of giving their natural resources away to an english company they can nationalise the resources like norway and keep the bulk of the money for themselves. whats the price of a barrel of oil goin to be in 5/10 years time??

    fishing rights?? im sure if scotland becomes an independant country any previous agreements between the uk and europe will be nul and void, so they can do what they like with there fishing/oil rights? am i wrong??

    another suggestion would be to take back the vast majority of the lands that where confiscated on behalf of the royals and divied out between there servants. (yep butlers and such)


  • Options
    #79
    Ald
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭Ald


    One thing that really makes me sratch my head is that Scotland wants independence but want to retain the monarchy... I just don't understand that. Why choose independence for only part of executive reprensentation? Is it to do with sentimental reasons regards Mary, Queen of Scots and King James???


  • Options
    #80
    Broxi_Bear_Eire
    Registered Users Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    Ald wrote: »
    One thing that really makes me sratch my head is that Scotland wants independence but want to retain the monarchy... I just don't understand that. Why choose independence for only part of executive reprensentation? Is it to do with sentimental reasons regards Mary, Queen of Scots and King James???

    Other countries have done this in the past ie Canada Australia etc


  • Options
    #81
    Ald
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭Ald


    Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »
    Other countries have done this in the past ie Canada Australia etc
    True, now that you say it. But likewise I don't understand the likes of Oz retaining the monarchy either... It still smacks of imperialism unless you're totally independent in my opinion...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    stewie01 wrote: »
    what oil??? maybe look it up before you jump on my post,or is that to hard to do?

    edit-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15292651

    tax take??? well maybe instead of giving their natural resources away to an english company they can nationalise the resources like norway and keep the bulk of the money for themselves. whats the price of a barrel of oil goin to be in 5/10 years time??

    fishing rights?? im sure if scotland becomes an independant country any previous agreements between the uk and europe will be nul and void, so they can do what they like with there fishing/oil rights? am i wrong??

    another suggestion would be to take back the vast majority of the lands that where confiscated on behalf of the royals and divied out between there servants. (yep butlers and such)

    Nationalise the oil Industry?

    Ain't gonna happen.


  • Options
    #83
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Ald wrote: »
    One thing that really makes me sratch my head is that Scotland wants independence but want to retain the monarchy... I just don't understand that. Why choose independence for only part of executive reprensentation? Is it to do with sentimental reasons regards Mary, Queen of Scots and King James???

    The monarchy is as much Scottish as it is English and still own properties north of the border. They are also incredibly popular up there. Plus the SNP are a nationalist party in the full extent, not like Sinn Fein for example who are a bit of a paradox.


  • Options
    #84
    Ald
    Closed Accounts Posts: 251 ✭✭Ald


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The monarchy is as much Scottish as it is English and still own properties north of the border. They are also incredibly popular up there. Plus the SNP are a nationalist party in the full extent, not like Sinn Fein for example who are a bit of a paradox.
    How so?


  • Options
    #85
    OS119
    Registered Users Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    stewie01 wrote: »
    am i wrong??

    spectacularly, on almost all counts.

    there is not enough oil left in the north sea to pay for 'Norway on the Clyde', regardless of who brings it out of the ground and sells it.

    BP isn't an English Company.

    the Royal holdings in Scotland - mostly mountain, forest, and heath moor - are not particularly economicly valuable, certainly not as valuable as having two shipyards building 60,000 ton Aircraft Carriers, a submarine base that directly employs 7,000 people and an air base that employs two and a half thousand.

    the SNP go to exraordinary lengths to ensure that everyone knows they will be staying in the EU, and that they intend to merely 'inherit' the Scottish bits of the UK's contribution to the EU. no re-negotiation, no cherrypicking, no leaving and then re-joining.


  • Options
    #86
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Has anyone studied history?

    Scotland voted to become part of the UK and it can just as easily vote to leave. Ireland- not so much. Military conquest.


  • Options
    #87
    Broxi_Bear_Eire
    Registered Users Posts: 6,704 ✭✭✭Broxi_Bear_Eire


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    Has anyone studied history?

    Scotland voted to become part of the UK and it can just as easily vote to leave. Ireland- not so much. Military conquest.

    And it will do but I don't believe it will happen in the next referendum


  • Options
    #88
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Ald wrote: »
    How so?

    They are a left wing nationalist party. It may be just my perception of nationalism, but I would normally describe it as to the right of centre.


  • Options
    #89
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    Has anyone studied history?

    Scotland voted to become part of the UK and it can just as easily vote to leave. Ireland- not so much. Military conquest.

    The GFA gives Northern Ireland an easy opt out clause just as Scotland has.


  • Options
    #90
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    OS119 wrote: »
    for the moment.

    anyone who places their strategic interest in winning this or that election, and having reasonably competant politicians who can successfully manage a '50%+1' situation indefinately is an idiot.

    personally i wouldn't be surprised to see, in a UI, the northern parties form a informal, un-talked about bloc within a 32 county Dail - sure there'll be some buggering about, with SF being more 'Southern than the Southerners' and the Unionists being obnoxious, but eventually they'll settle down and discover that they have an awful lot of interests in common given the geography, history (having had the NHS for example) and socially conservative veiws.

    they will probably have more power in those circumstances that either in the hyper-moderated Stormont, or being irrelevent at Westminster.

    I agree, I think it would be fascinating to see how the DUP are received in an all Ireland election. I wonder what the rules are for getting a referendum on rejoining the UK are?

    The unionist parties are in a bit of a tight spot though, any all island political discussions would be seen as defeatist by their faithful, whereas nationalists would see it as working towards the end goal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    glic71rods46t0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I agree, I think it would be fascinating to see how the DUP are received in an all Ireland election. I wonder what the rules are for getting a referendum on rejoining the UK are?

    The unionist parties are in a bit of a tight spot though, any all island political discussions would be seen as defeatist by their faithful, whereas nationalists would see it as working towards the end goal.

    A 2 state federation would be a more likely eventuality than single unified state.

    Certain offices would have an all Ireland nature though (and require an all Ireland election) such as Federal President and other key posts. I would still see a Taoiseach/First Minister in each respective constituent state in the federation.


Advertisement