You can't quit UK without my approval, David Cameron warns Scots

Killer Pigeon

Scottish independence is downright stupidity in these times of economic uncertainty. Nationalism is a fanciful notion that has little baring on reality. It'll be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Fratton Fred

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Scottish independence is downright stupidity in these times of economic uncertainty. Nationalism is a fanciful notion that has little baring on reality. It'll be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think that is the crux of this whole debate. Independence is way behind the economy in people's priorities at the moment, so Salmond wants to delay and potentially look for independence light/devolution max and Cameron is saying if you want it, do it now and do it fully, knowing that it will get rejected.

dlofnep

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Scottish independence is downright stupidity in these times of economic uncertainty. Nationalism is a fanciful notion that has little baring on reality. It'll be a bureaucratic nightmare.

Spare me the canard. Where exactly does 'reality' come into play, about aspiring to control your own affairs? It's not a question of reality. It's a question of which outcome the Scottish people will favour.

If they chose to remain in the union, then so be it. If they chose to become independent, then so be it. But don't try and belittle the aspiration of independence. It is a perfectly legitimate vision, and doesn't deserve the absurd, and cynical mockery from you. It's the lowest form of debate.

Judgement Day

What about if the people of NI vote to stay in the Union - then so be it? And, I was not referring specifically to this thread when mentioning your rants.

woodoo

Judgement Day wrote: »

Funny old thing how Irish nationalists support a number of independent states on one island while insisting on a single unitary state on this one. :rolleyes:

I like to see genuine historical countries stand on their own feet. Scotland is an ancient country as is England and Wales and Ireland. The state of NI is an aberration. Only about 90/100 years old and formed against the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland.

Killer Pigeon

dlofnep wrote: »

Spare me the canard. Where exactly does 'reality' come into play, about aspiring to control your own affairs? It's not a question of reality. It's a question of which outcome the Scottish people will favour.

Oh sure, I don't have anything against letting Scottish people do what they feel is best for them. Let them become independent if they want to. If they want to make a stupid decision, let them make a stupid decision, by all means. If they want to put their hands into the fire along with the SNP, there should be nothing stopping them. That's the beauty of democracy.

dlofnep wrote: »

If they chose to remain in the union, then so be it. If they chose to become independent, then so be it. But don't try and belittle the aspiration of independence. It is a perfectly legitimate vision, and doesn't deserve the absurd, and cynical mockery from you. It's the lowest form of debate.

It's a legitimate vision, but an unwise one.

lugha

woodoo wrote: »

I like to see genuine historical countries stand on their own feet. Scotland is an ancient country as is England and Wales and Ireland. The state of NI is an aberration. Only about 90/100 years old and formed against the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland.

The difficulty with appealing to the notion of “ancient countries” is that while the country borders in these islands are relatively unmolested (bar our own), many other borders, especially in Europe have been drawn and redrawn, almost always as the result of aggression and at the whim of war victors.
If you are to right the wrongs of history and restore all of the ancient lands, where would you put the “rightful” international borders between countries in Europe? Indeed, what would the countries actually be???

Nobody would seriously try to do that of course. Instead we take the pragmatic approach of “playing it where it lays”. And in many places, including here, it lays where it lays because of an (ancient!) past injustice.

dlofnep

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

If they want to make a stupid decision, let them make a stupid decision, by all means.

Where does one's intellect come into play when aspiring to control their own affairs? Would you have stated the same to the former soviet states when they broke from the centralised rule of the USSR?

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

If they want to put their hands into the fire along with the SNP, there should be nothing stopping them. That's the beauty of democracy.

The SNP have proven to be a capable government, with a strong approval record and great decision making. We would only be so lucky to be governed by a party with their vision.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

It's a legitimate vision, but an unwise one.

That is your opinion, it is not objective fact.

Fratton Fred

woodoo wrote: »

I like to see genuine historical countries stand on their own feet. Scotland is an ancient country as is England and Wales and Ireland. The state of NI is an aberration. Only about 90/100 years old and formed against the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland.

How long do you go back in history? Back to the days when Ireland wasnt one nation, but several?

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

And, you might want to tell former Scottish Tory Party leader that Scotland is being subsidised by England, because she doesn't agree: http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/7992-scotland-not-subsidised-by-rest-of-uk-says-annabel-goldie

Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland figures show Scotland is a net beneficiary within the UK:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/1

dlofnep wrote: »

Not really, considering Ireland is a single nation - much like Scotland is a single nation.

By what definition?

dlofnep wrote: »

If Scotland was partitioned after they received independence, it would be morally justified to seek to reunification of Scotland. Or if in the unlikely scenario that Scotland absorbed one or two northern English counties, it would be perfectly justified for England to seek reunification of England.

If we're going to apply this logic to the rest of the world, there are a whole lot of borders out there that need to be redrawn.

TheSpecialOne

Scotland cannot afford to leave the UK unless they want to be financially screwed like us...imagine if Scotland was independent and they had to Bail out RBS etc..

lugha

TheSpecialOne wrote: »

Scotland cannot afford to leave the UK unless they want to be financially screwed like us...imagine if Scotland was independent and they had to Bail out RBS etc..

One of the news programmes pointed out one (of many, no doubt) interesting problem an independent Scotland will have to deal with.

They will likely have to seek, or not, membership of the EU in their own right. And if they do, they will quite possibly have to adopt the euro!

Fratton Fred

TheSpecialOne wrote: »

Scotland cannot afford to leave the UK unless they want to be financially screwed like us...imagine if Scotland was independent and they had to Bail out RBS etc..

If Scotland was independent, they would have either let one of the largest banks in the world go bust, or bail it out, thereby bankrupting Scotland.

TheSpecialOne

lugha wrote: »

One of the news programmes pointed out one (of many, no doubt) interesting problem an independent Scotland will have to deal with.

They will likely have to seek, or not, membership of the EU in their own right. And if they do, they will quite possibly have to adopt the euro!

This is very true or Scotland could stick with the Pound or possibly Start a Scot Pound..Overall as romantic as independence is i would suggest they should remain in the union for the foreseable future.

Richard

TheSpecialOne wrote: »

This is very true or Scotland could stick with the Pound or possibly Start a Scot Pound..Overall as romantic as independence is i would suggest they should remain in the union for the foreseable future.

But as a new EU entrant they'd have to join the Euro like every new EU member has to.

dlofnep

djpbarry wrote: »

Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland figures show Scotland is a net beneficiary within the UK:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/1

No, it doesn't. That cites 'per capita share' of the north sea revenue. It does not include total north sea revenue, with an average of about 9 billion annually in revenue. (Almost £13 billion in 2009)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/north_sea_oil_revenues_would_put_scotland_in_the_black_report_1_476785

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/7

Now if you remove the cost of the British foreign policy, Scotland is in the black.

djpbarry wrote: »

By what definition?

By any definition.

djpbarry

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it doesn't. That cites 'per capita share' of the north sea revenue. It does not include total north sea revenue...

Of course it doesn't. Why would it?

dlofnep wrote: »

By any definition.

Well, using international borders to define nations, Ireland is not a single nation. Using ancestral lineage to define nations of people, it could be argued that Scotland is not a single nation, but is in fact an amalgamation of Picts and Gaels.

ardmacha

Ireland is not a single nation.

Of course it is a single nation.

And if you want legalities then all persons in Ireland are members of the Irish nation, as per the constitutional amendment which was supported by 99% of the population of the Republic and agreed as part of the GFA.

Using ancestral lineage to define nations of people, it could be argued that Scotland is not a single nation, but is in fact an amalgamation of Picts and Gaels.

If you are saying that any inter-mixture of people over several thousand years precludes nationhood then there are no nations. Racial purity is not a proper basis for 21st century nationhood.

In general this thread has the usual trivialities often found in debates about this country and its division. Scotland can be a success or a failure, that is up to them. One of Scotland's nearest neighbours, Denmark, is about the same size and is a prosperous and successful place. This State did good work for a decade or more in catching up on more prosperous economies, then we decided to piss it all away by selling houses to each other for borrowed money. We did not have to do this.

As to the last bit of Empire on this island, two quotes from the Telegraph article linked indicate the value the British place on the "and" part of the UK.

Mr Brown said: "There is a debate to be had about the future of the United Kingdom. But I think when you look at the arguments — at the family ties, the economic connections, the shared values, the history of our relationship which has lasted 300 years — people will decide we are stronger together and weaker apart."

Mr Cameron said: "The union between England, Scotland and Wales is good for us all and we are stronger together than we are apart.

grizzly

Realistically it's not going to happen in the the next few years, or even he next few decades. The Scottish people would have too little to gain in practical terms and much more to lose. Joining the euro was talked about – if I was Scottish that's the least appealing currency I'd want to adopt.

KeithAFC

The partition of Ireland was an unjust move, against the wishes of the majority of the population of Ireland.

Partition was a necessity. If partition didn't happen, it would have been 10x worse than what followed in the following decades. The Ulster Loyalists had been preparing to fight long before the Free state was created. Never mind a full 32 county Irish Republic which would have had a huge influence from Rome.

But back to Scotland. I have no problem with the Scottish people deciding. I just hope Cameron can put the case for the Union across. I am confident though that the Scottish people will not be mugged off by Alex Samond who is trying to delay the referendum for as long as possible.

KeithAFC

grizzly wrote: »

Realistically it's not going to happen in the the next few years, or even he next few decades. The Scottish people would have too little to gain in practical terms and much more to lose. Joining the euro was talked about – if I was Scottish that's the least appealing currency I'd want to adopt.

I agree. People are forgetting this is the SNP we are talking about. They might not be the main party for long. So if doesn't happen in the next 10 years, they could be well gone by then as the main party in Scotland and the next party might have completely different views on the Union.

So if they are going to do it, they will need to do it soon.

steddyeddy

Judgement Day wrote: »

The Crown, the Union - take your pick. Rats leaving what they incorrectly see as a sinking ship. They've been watching Braveheart too often. The only ones who will gain from the break-up of the UK are its enemies.

I wasnt going to post in this thread but for the sake of decency could you take back your reference to people with differing politcal views to yourself as "rats" its quite offensive.

KeithAFC

steddyeddy wrote: »

Keith no offense but you consider the term "red hand of ulster" a loyalist expression.

No. I have never denied the roots of the famous red hand with Hugh O'Neil. All patriots use it.

djpbarry

ardmacha wrote: »

And if you want legalities then all persons in Ireland are members of the Irish nation, as per the constitutional amendment which was supported by 99% of the population of the Republic and agreed as part of the GFA.

No, all persons in Ireland are entitled to be part of the Irish nation. That doesn't mean that everyone in Ireland takes up the offer and hence the nation is defined by the subjective whims of the population.

ardmacha wrote: »

If you are saying that any inter-mixture of people over several thousand years precludes nationhood then there are no nations.

I'm saying that nations are plastic - they're not set in stone and their extent varies depending on the criteria used to define them. Dlofnep stated that Ireland and Scotland are single nations by any definition - I'm simply pointing out that some definition is obviously required and this will vary from person to person.

LordSutch

David Cameron has obviously stepped up to the plate and called Mr Salmond's bluff re "Lets have the referendum now" while Salmond wants to delay until he gets the climate just right (for his liking). Cameron is basically saying stop messing about Salmond, its affecting inward investment into Scotland and multinationals don't know whats happening next! Will Scotland still be in the UK this time next year? or not? so much uncertainty now surrounds the Union thanks to the SNP's pledge to pull Scotland out of the Union (if they win the referendum), so the sooner its settled the better for all, according to Prime Minister Cameron.

This thread is about who is going to be the pro Union voice, but would David Cameron (Scottish heritage) be the best mouthpiece for the Pro-Union lobby in Scotland? 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!

Who, if anybody will be the voice of the Pro-Union debate in the battle for Scottish hearts & minds? Who's going to be on the flip side of the SNP Salmond coin? Is one single 'Pro-Union' mouthpiece needed at all? maybe the Union is perfectly safe without a single confrontational voice?

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it doesn't. That cites 'per capita share' of the north sea revenue. It does not include total north sea revenue, with an average of about 9 billion annually in revenue. (Almost £13 billion in 2009)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/north_sea_oil_revenues_would_put_scotland_in_the_black_report_1_476785

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/06/21144516/7

Now if you remove the cost of the British foreign policy, Scotland is in the black.

Not all North Sea revenue would be Scottish, there is some in English waters, nowhere near as much as Scotland though.

Foreign policy would be an interesting one. The MOD employ a lot of people in Scotland and if Scotland was to withdraw completely from this, it would most likely lead to the closure of Leuchars, Lossiemouth and even HMNB Clyde, which employs 4000 civilians.

You then have to question if the British government would continue giving orders to Babcock, possibly preferring the money to stay within England and Wales.

Then there is the question of the Scottish regiments. Would they be disbanded? Where would the thousands of Scottish soldiers go?

As always, these questions are not black and white, there are infinite amounts of grey.

lugha

djpbarry wrote: »

Dlofnep stated that Ireland and Scotland are single nations by any definition - I'm simply pointing out that some definition is obviously required and this will vary from person to person.

Perhaps if we spoke our own language it would make the defining a little easier? But you are right, nations along with states and countries are not immutable.

Many would argue that you look to history to answer these questions (assuming you think nation and nationalism are good things!). But where is the logic in that? Surely the premise on which you assert that a people are of one nation is that they have (present tense!) a kinship or something substantially in common. To assert this for the nationalists and unionists on this island is clearly daft. The relationship between the two is at best one of tolerance and for many in the ranks of both sides, is one of undisguised mutual hostility.

woodoo

KeithAFC wrote: »

Partition was a necessity. If partition didn't happen, it would have been 10x worse than what followed in the following decades. The Ulster Loyalists had been preparing to fight long before the Free state was created. Never mind a full 32 county Irish Republic which would have had a huge influence from Rome..

There seems to be a rise in the number of English people interested in going it alone too. When the union breaks up NI will prob go it alone. Alot of people in the south will want to see that fail paving the way for an economically favourable UI.

The demographics in the North are changing. A catholic majority is near. Many of the unionist ulster scots people are heading home to scotland for university and jobs and they are not returning.

Something big is stirring over there now and it may end up being the English that say time to move on. Scotland may well say it too though.

Dr Galen

I've deleted a rake of OT posts from this thread

I thought I made it quite clear in a previous warning about staying OT and keeping the sniping out of it?

Let me clear again....

There are several posters who are skirting close to sanction of some sort. Bringing your own favourite hobby horse into each thread you post in, won't be tolerated. The OP and subject of this thread is quite obvious really. Stick to it please.

Cheers

DrG

LordSutch

ardmacha wrote: »

Of course it is a single nation.

Yes, Ireland (Republic of) is a single nation.