Scottish Independence discussion area

A Dub in Glasgo

Comfreycream wrote: »

EU

Was that E meant to be an F?

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You are the one comparing United States (federal system), Belgium (federal system) & Austrailia (federal system) with the UK (non-federal system). It is quite clear that the federal systems are better equipped at dealing with disparate nations / states

Scotland has a reinstated Parliament with some devolved powers from Westminster. That does not equate to federalism

We are not being asked to vote on Federalism or Devo Max, we are being asked to vote on the the existing arrangement or independence. I have chosen independence from that choice.

The UK never developed a federal government, but Scotland is essentially a de facto 'state' within the UK. It has it's own legal system, church and government, and as much freedom to create law as any australian state.

I do agree the UK would be wise to formalise federation.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Nor is is clear how the Union harms Scotland.

Seems it is very clear to those intending to vote Yes.

kingchess

as a de facto state it should not cost too much to become a" real state"??

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

Seems it is very clear to those intending to vote Yes.

Oh yeah, you are right. Lots of people are going to vote Yes, so it's obvious the union is bad for scotland.

Just like in 2007 it was obvious the Fianna Fail were doing a fantastic job.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK never developed a federal government, but Scotland is essentially a de facto 'state' within the UK. It has it's own legal system, church and government, and as much freedom to create law as any australian state.

I do agree the UK would be wise to formalise federation.

Scotland is seen as a 'subsidy junkie' by the main part of the union. Even the No side are stating 'Vote No as we Scots get £1,200 spending per head over the rest of the UK' and 'Scottish people are not genetically programmed to make decisions for ourselves'. This is because the Scottish Parliament introduces different policies to the rest of the UK on devolved matters (eg prescription charges, eye test charges).

The devolved and reserved powers are here and listed below

Devolved powers
The following areas are decided in Scotland.

Health
Education
Housing
Sport and Arts
Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing
Emergency Services
Planning
Social Work
Heritage
some Transport
Tourism

Reserved powers
Decisions (mostly about matters with a UK or international impact) are reserved and dealt with at Westminster.

Defence
UK Foreign Policy
Social Security
Financial & Economic Matters
Employment
Constitutional matters
Immigration & Nationality
Monetary System
Common Markets
Some transport
Data Protection
Energy
Gambling
Medical Ethics
Equal Opportunities
The UK Parliament at Westminster retains power to legislate on any matter, but the convention of devolution is that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

kingchess

kingchess wrote: »

as a de facto state it should not cost too much to become a" real state"??

If you are asking about the costs of actually creating the institutions of state then yes they are a drop in the ocean.

The costs of leaving the UK are real and hard to quantify. On the other hand the benefits of being an independent nation are also real and hard to quantify.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh yeah, you are right. Lots of people are going to vote Yes, so it's obvious the union is bad for scotland.

Just like in 2007 it was obvious the Fianna Fail were doing a fantastic job.

I can see you are bitter about the possibility of a Yes vote. I still can't see, and nobody has yet explained to me, what is uniquely available to somebody who calls themselves British that is not available to somebody from an independent sovereign entity, other than a dubious and questionable economic stability (which those intending to vote Yes, would dispute)

Spring Onion

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can see you are bitter about the possibility of a Yes vote.

Is it possible to be bitter about a possibility???

WakeUp

Good luck to the Scots whatever they choose to do. if they do vote yes I think they can make it work but it won't be all plain sailing. the Spanish and Belgians to name but two must be quite on edge with their own separatist movements waiting to see how this plays out. if a yes vote happens both of those countries could make life difficult for the scots in their attempt to join the EU. they might not block an application outright but they won't play nice. they won't want to see a precedent set - part of a current EU member breaking away and joining up as an independent entity. a yes vote in Scotland has some serious possible implications for them. they will act accordingly. the vote is too close to call maybe precipitation will be the factor that swings it one way or the other. who wants it more. we shall see. anyways good luck to them.

Happyman42

Spring Onion wrote: »

Is it possible to be bitter about a possibility???

Around these parts...absolutely!

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can see you are bitter about the possibility of a Yes vote. I still can't see, and nobody has yet explained to me, what is uniquely available to somebody who calls themselves British that is not available to somebody from an independent sovereign entity, other than a dubious and questionable economic stability (which those intending to vote Yes, would dispute)

How would I be bitter about it? I don't live in Scotland and it won't affect me either way, other than the marginal possibility that an independent scotland will attempt to outdo us on the inward investment front.

To answer your question directly there's nothing 'available' to someone who is British that isn't 'available' to someone who is Scottish or any other nationality, other than (I suppose) the opportunity to trade freely with another 50 million people. I don't really get that point to be honest with you.

What is 'available' to a person living in the united states that isn't 'available' to him or her living in an independent Georgia? What is 'available' to someone living in Ireland that isn't 'available' to that same person in the newly declared people's republic or Cork? What is 'available' to someone living under an Edinburgh government that is not 'available' to them under the free and oil-rich united shetland emirates?

What is 'available' to someone in the EU or a country in the EU that is not 'available' to someone outside it?

Like I say, I don't understand the question.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

How would I be bitter about it?

Why are you so critical of people deciding to leave a union that isn't working for them?

To answer your question directly there's nothing 'available' to someone who is British that isn't 'available' to someone who is Scottish or any other nationality, other than (I suppose) the opportunity to trade freely with another 50 million people. I don't really get that point to be honest with you.

What is 'available' to a person living in the united states that isn't 'available' to him or her living in an independent Georgia? What is 'available' to someone living in Ireland that isn't 'available' to that same person in the newly declared people's republic or Cork? What is 'available' to someone living under an Edinburgh government that is not 'available' to them under the free and oil-rich united shetland emirates?

What is 'available' to someone in the EU or a country in the EU that is not 'available' to someone outside it?

Like I say, I don't understand the question.

The original poster I questioned talked about an 'afinity with Britain as an entity'. I am simply asking what is that affinity precisely?

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why are you so critical of people deciding to leave a union that isn't working for them?

Am I? Show me where I am critical of Scots wanting independence.

I am critical of idiots (there are plenty on both sides of this debate) who don't understand the political structure or history of the UK. There is a difference.

WRT the 'affinity' I explained it above. There is not actually a great deal of difference between the scots and the english, certainly not the lowland scots who make up the vast majority of the population. They have been one country for 300 years.

They also have a distinct identity as Scots and if they want to be independent then of course they should go for it. You only have to go back a few posts to see me saying I have every faith a prosperous independent scotland can emerge.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why are you so critical of people deciding to leave a union that isn't working for them?


The original poster I questioned talked about an 'afinity with Britain as an entity'. I am simply asking what is that affinity precisely?

I explained this to you previously, but you chose to ignore/belittle it.

Maybe if you could explain what being Irish means, we could do a comparison.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Am I? Show me where I am critical of Scots wanting independence.
I am critical of idiots (there are plenty on both sides of this debate) who don't understand the political structure or history of the UK. There is a difference.

In your original answer to me you attacked the 'yes idiots' only.

WRT the 'affinity' I explained it above. There is not actually a great deal of difference between the scots and the english, certainly not the lowland scots who make up the vast majority of the population. They have been one country for 300 years.

They also have a distinct identity as Scots and if they want to be independent then of course they should go for it. You only have to go back a few posts to see me saying I have every faith a prosperous independent scotland can emerge.

So this 'affinity' thing isn't all that important then? Is that what you are saying?
That is how I would think about it.
Maybe one of the more ardent Unionist will tell us why it is important. When you get down to it, other than some dubious economic advantage, as a concept it doesn't seem to have anything defining to recommend it.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I explained this to you previously, but you chose to ignore/belittle it.

Maybe if you could explain what being Irish means, we could do a comparison.

It's your stock answer when you can't answer Fred. Turn it around and make it about being Irish. Tiresome.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's your stock answer when you can't answer Fred. Turn it around and make it about being Irish. Tiresome.

I've already explained my opinion, which you know because you responded to it.

You are dodging my question though because you can't answer it.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

In your original answer to me you attacked the 'yes idiots' only.


So this 'affinity' thing isn't all that important then? Is that what you are saying?
That is how I would think about it.
Maybe one of the more ardent Unionist will tell us why it is important. When you get down to it, other than some dubious economic advantage, as a concept it doesn't seem to have anything defining to recommend it.

Like any such concept it is strong or weak depending on how people feel. Some scots feel 'proud to be british', some don't or are actively against the concept of britishness.

It isn't some factual thing that you can define - which is why you can't tell us what is materially advantageous or significant about being Irish.

Thanks for acknowledging that I didn't in fact criticise scots who want to be independent.

Yamanoto

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's your stock answer when you can't answer Fred. Turn it around and make it about being Irish. Tiresome.

You are Irish.

Not a whole lotta sense in Fred asking you to put into words what it means to be Mauritian.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Like any such concept it is strong or weak depending on how people feel. Some scots feel 'proud to be british', some don't or are actively against the concept of britishness.

It isn't some factual thing that you can define - which is why you can't tell us what is materially advantageous or significant about being Irish.

Thanks for acknowledging that I didn't in fact criticise scots who want to be independent.

But you have said that they have a 'distinct identity as Scots' so you can define what it is to be Scottish but cannot factually 'define' Britishness.

Happyman42

Yamanoto wrote: »

You are Irish.

Not a whole lotta sense in Fred asking you to put into words what it means to be Mauritian.

This isn't a thread about Irishness, if Fred wants to reference some other thread let him work away. He needs to answer here, if he can.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

This isn't a thread about Irishness, if Fred wants to reference some other thread let him work away. He needs to answer here, if he can.

Well there's a dodge if ever I saw one.

I answered earlier in this thread, but I'll humour you and give you my own feelings on the subject.

Being British is about being part of a collective that reflects the multicultural society the UK is today. It doesn't reflect national or ethnic backgrounds and is, to an extent, a secondary identity.

You can be Scottish and British, English and British etc, or you can be Indian, Somali or Caribbean and British. Being British is what joins is together. You don't look at someone in a burkha and say that they can't be British, or someone who supports the Indian cricket team.

It is a union of people as much as it is a union of politics.

Now, maybe you can explain how that differs to your view of being Irish.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well there's a dodge if ever I saw one.

I answered earlier in this thread, but I'll humour you and give you my own feelings on the subject.

Being British is about being part of a collective that reflects the multicultural society the UK is today. It doesn't reflect national or ethnic backgrounds and is, to an extent, a secondary identity.

You can be Scottish and British, English and British etc, or you can be Indian, Somali or Caribbean and British. Being British is what joins is together. You don't look at someone in a burkha and say that they can't be British, or someone who supports the Indian cricket team.

It is a union of people as much as it is a union of politics.

Now, maybe you can explain how that differs to your view of being Irish.

Could you use any more nebulous or tourist brouchery hyperbole? :rolleyes:
What do you mean 'it is a union of people', there are longstanding and deep divisions within Britain, some of which will come to a head on Thursday?
And 'politics' will happen whether people are of a union' or not.
'

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Well there's a dodge if ever I saw one.

I answered earlier in this thread, but I'll humour you and give you my own feelings on the subject.

Being British is about being part of a collective that reflects the multicultural society the UK is today. It doesn't reflect national or ethnic backgrounds and is, to an extent, a secondary identity.

You can be Scottish and British, English and British etc, or you can be Indian, Somali or Caribbean and British. Being British is what joins is together. You don't look at someone in a burkha and say that they can't be British, or someone who supports the Indian cricket team.

It is a union of people as much as it is a union of politics.

Now, maybe you can explain how that differs to your view of being Irish.

So when did all that happen? Post world war 2 or in the 60s? Or after thatcher f**cked off out of power?

Fratton Fred

Funny isn't it, two of the main Irish republicans are the first to question my post. It obviously doesn't fit in with what their teachings have told them.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you use any more nebulous or tourist brouchery hyperbole? :rolleyes:
What do you mean 'it is a union of people', there are longstanding and deep divisions within Britain, some of which will come to a head on Thursday?
And 'politics' will happen whether people are of a union' or not.
'

Can I presume than, that your definition of what Irish means is " not British"?

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you use any more nebulous or tourist brouchery hyperbole? :rolleyes:
What do you mean 'it is a union of people', there are longstanding and deep divisions within Britain, some of which will come to a head on Thursday?
And 'politics' will happen whether people are of a union' or not.
'

I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

Isn't it totally obvious what 'Britain' is and what 'being British' means? You are or can be British if you are born in Britain.

"Britain" as an entity and identity is associated with the things achieved (the good and bad) as the United Kingdom - rather than being specifically associated with England or Scotland alone (or Wales).

Are you telling all the various scottish people who think of themselves as british as well that they are wrong?

Or perhaps you are just projecting the tedious politics of northern ireland?

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Funny isn't it, two of the main Irish republicans are the first to question my post. It obviously doesn't fit in with what their teachings have told them.

It doesn't fit in with a lot of things

Yamanoto

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you use any more nebulous or tourist brouchery hyperbole? :rolleyes:

T'was yourself who asked for a precise explanation as to why someone felt an affinity with Britain.

It's a nonsense question as well you know, as by its very nature such an affinity is ill-defined, indeterminate & as much about something you feel in your bones.

Appears to me you're just arguing here for the hell of it.

drumswan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Being British is about being part of a collective that reflects the multicultural society the UK is today. It doesn't reflect national or ethnic backgrounds and is, to an extent, a secondary identity.

You can be Scottish and British, English and British etc, or you can be Indian, Somali or Caribbean and British. Being British is what joins is together. You don't look at someone in a burkha and say that they can't be British, or someone who supports the Indian cricket team.

TIL the concept of Britishness is about 60 years old.

Fratton Fred

drumswan wrote: »

TIL the concept of Britishness is about 60 years old.

The concept of Britishness is ever changing.

Happyman42

Yamanoto wrote: »

T'was yourself who asked for a precise explanation as to why someone felt an affinity with Britain.

It's a nonsense question as well you know, as by its very nature such an affinity is ill-defined, indeterminate & as much about something you feel in your bones.

Appears to me you're just arguing here for the hell of it.

No, I am, as I have in the past, just trying to show just how unimportant it is as a concept, despite the flowery and airy fairy protestations to the contrary.
Would Britain or Britishness be missed in the greater scheme of things? I very much doubt it.
Perhaps we have hit on the instinctive dislike of the EU as a concept among those who call themselves 'British'. It offers everything and more that is claimed for Britishness and it too will inevitably flounder because it's claim to be a 'union' of anything is based on myths. Myths created so that a few can benefit (just like Britain) while the rest get the scraps (like Scottish nationalists believe)

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I am, as I have in the past, just trying to show just how unimportant it is as a concept, despite the flowery and airy fairy protestations to the contrary.
Would Britain or Britishness be missed in the greater scheme of things? I very much doubt it.
Perhaps we have hit on the instinctive dislike of the EU as a concept among those who call themselves 'British'. It offers everything and more that is claimed for Britishness and it too will inevitably flounder because it's claim to be a 'union' of anything is based on myths. Myths created so that a few can benefit (just like Britain) while the rest get the scraps (like Scottish nationalists believe)

So I explained my opinion and you have chosen (again) to completely ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your narrow view.

All you have managed to do is demonstrate your own prejudice.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I am, as I have in the past, just trying to show just how unimportant it is as a concept, despite the flowery and airy fairy protestations to the contrary.
Would Britain or Britishness be missed in the greater scheme of things? I very much doubt it.
Perhaps we have hit on the instinctive dislike of the EU as a concept among those who call themselves 'British'. It offers everything and more that is claimed for Britishness and it too will inevitably flounder because it's claim to be a 'union' of anything is based on myths. Myths created so that a few can benefit (just like Britain) while the rest get the scraps (like Scottish nationalists believe)

Every country is a union.

Scotland is a union. Ireland is a union. England is a union. France, Germany, Italy, Spain - pretty much all of them.

Where exactly do you think countries come from? There aren't any lines on the ground you know.

Please don't tell me you are so historically ignorant you think the modern nation states we are 'used to' are some sort of inviolable and natural entity? lol.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So I explained my opinion and you have chosen (again) to completely ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your narrow view.

All you have managed to do is demonstrate your own prejudice.

Here was my opinion of your opinion. I didn't ignore it, I just called it for the airy fairy nothingness it was.

Could you use any more nebulous or tourist brouchery hyperbole?
What do you mean 'it is a union of people', there are longstanding and deep divisions within Britain, some of which will come to a head on Thursday?
And 'politics' will happen whether people are of a union' or not.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Here was my opinion of your opinion. I didn't ignore it, I just called it for the airy fairy nothingness it was.

Sounded more like "nah nah I'm not listening" to be honest.

Happyman42

Deleted User wrote: »

Every country is a union.

Scotland is a union. Ireland is a union. England is a union. France, Germany, Italy, Spain - pretty much all of them.

Where exactly do you think countries come from? There aren't any lines on the ground you know.

Please don't tell me you are so historically ignorant you think the modern nation states we are 'used to' are some sort of inviolable and natural entity? lol.

What?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sounded more like "nah nah I'm not listening" to be honest.

There was nothing of substance to 'listen' too Fred.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

There was nothing of substance to 'listen' too Fred.

I'm still waiting for you to describe what Irishness is.

Happyman42

Happyman42 wrote: »

What?

Read it again and tell me what you disagree with.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to describe what Irishness is.

And I am going to resist on this thread as it has no relevance, and I wasn't the one stating that people 'feel an affinity to being British'.
To feel an affinity to anything you have to know what it is first, which tbh, judging from what we have heard, doesn't seem that much or important.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

And I am going to resist on this thread as it has no relevance, and I was the one stating that people 'feel an affinity to being British'.
To feel an affinity to anything you have to know what it is first, which tbh, judging from what we have heard, doesn't seem that much or important.

So you don't think cultural integration and tolerance are important?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to describe what Irishness is.

Because there is no such thing as Irishness just as there is no such thing as Britishness,Frenchness,Germaness,Americaness etc.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Because there is no such thing as Irishness just as there is no such thing as Britishness,Frenchness,Germaness,Americaness etc.

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So you don't think cultural integration and tolerance are important?

Absolutely. What makes you think that that is not available in an independent, sovereign entity?

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely. What makes you think an that that is not available in an independent, sovereign entity?

Because separation has the opposite effect. The message Scottish nationalists are sending out is that we are better off alone.

karma_

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because separation has the opposite effect. The message Scottish nationalists are sending out is that we are better off alone.

Maybe they would be given what happened to Scotland during the 80's and the devastation caused by Thatcher and successive Tory governments.

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Because separation has the opposite effect.

What?
They are suddenly going to become culturally exclusive and intolerant?

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The concept of Britishness is ever changing.

Its a concept that changes to reflect the needs of one particular group though


It may have to change a bit more next week and all