Scottish independence

Water John

Sam Russell wrote: »

Democracy is defined differently in every democracy in the world. Every country finds its own version, and implements it based on their culture and history.

Why should the Isle of Mann be independent and not the Isle of Wight? The Isle of Wight does not even have its own County Council. So one rule for one island off GB and a different one for another.

Scotland has, as a separate country, in the past been independent of England and Wales (until 1603) when the King of Scotland (James VI) became King of England (James I). So historically, it has a claim for reverting back to being independent of England and Wales.

Poland as a territory moved west following the Yalta agreement to the benefit of the USSR and the loss to Germany - so historical borders can shift. [Following war and subsequent peace].

The problem with granting such changes are the transition procedure, and sharing out the debts and the assets.

James became king of the UK in very dubious circumstances too.

bob mcbob

The desperation of Boris knows no bounds.

Boris Johnson has taken a swipe at the Scottish National party by claiming that there would not have been a single Covid-19 vaccine in Scotland if it were up to Nicola Sturgeon’s party, the Guardian understands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/06/johnson-no-covid-vaccine-in-scotland-if-snp-had-its-way

I think everyone in Scotland should clap for Boris because where would we be without his selfless actions.

A Dub in Glasgo

Unfortunately not everyone

The desperation from the Tories has just gone up another level

BonnieSituation

bob mcbob wrote: »

The desperation of Boris knows no bounds.

Boris Johnson has taken a swipe at the Scottish National party by claiming that there would not have been a single Covid-19 vaccine in Scotland if it were up to Nicola Sturgeon’s party, the Guardian understands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/06/johnson-no-covid-vaccine-in-scotland-if-snp-had-its-way

I think everyone in Scotland should clap for Boris because where would we be without his selfless actions.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Unfortunately not everyone

The desperation from the Tories has just gone up another level

He is brutal. Just has to keep this line of attack til May really and reap what he sows. It's fantastic tbh.

Mr.Nice Guy

Really looking forward to the next set of opinion polls. I think with Brexit reality dawning, plus Johnson's comments about a referendum in 2055, and now his latest silly swipe at Sturgeon, I wouldn't be shocked to see the number creep to 60% in at least one of them before too long.

Headshot

bob mcbob wrote: »

The desperation of Boris knows no bounds.

Boris Johnson has taken a swipe at the Scottish National party by claiming that there would not have been a single Covid-19 vaccine in Scotland if it were up to Nicola Sturgeon’s party, the Guardian understands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/06/johnson-no-covid-vaccine-in-scotland-if-snp-had-its-way

I think everyone in Scotland should clap for Boris because where would we be without his selfless actions.

He's the gift that keeps on giving to SNP and vote for Independence

eire4

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Really looking forward to the next set of opinion polls. I think with Brexit reality dawning, plus Johnson's comments about a referendum in 2055, and now his latest silly swipe at Sturgeon, I wouldn't be shocked to see the number creep to 60% in at least one of them before too long.

I think your probably right. The SNP must be loving all this with the assembly elections looming large now.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Scotland has, as a separate country, in the past been independent of England and Wales (until 1603) when the King of Scotland (James VI) became King of England (James I).

Nitpick: Scotland and England were independent countries until 1707. From 1603 the same person was King of England and King of Scotland, but each country had its own parliament, government, courts, state church, etc, none of which had any role in the government of the other country. (You could make the comparison today with, say, Canada and Australia, who both have the same person as monarch but who are, nevertheless, two entirely separate countries with their own governments, laws, armies, etc.)

The two countries united to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, partly because the Scottish and English parliaments were proposing to enact different laws about who would succeed Queen Anne, if she died without direct heirs, which seemed likely (and, in the event, did actually happen in 1714). In the event the disagreement about who would succeed was resolved but, as long as the crowns were separate, the problem could arise again and at some point in the future different people might succeed to the Scottish and English thrones. This was seen as potentially destabilising.

rock22

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Really looking forward to the next set of opinion polls. I think with Brexit reality dawning, plus Johnson's comments about a referendum in 2055, and now his latest silly swipe at Sturgeon, I wouldn't be shocked to see the number creep to 60% in at least one of them before too long.

If it only reaches 60%, when Brexit damage will probably be at it's worst and the continuing lockdown then I fear they would be little change, long term, of a successful referendum outcome.

dogbert27

bob mcbob wrote: »

The desperation of Boris knows no bounds.

Boris Johnson has taken a swipe at the Scottish National party by claiming that there would not have been a single Covid-19 vaccine in Scotland if it were up to Nicola Sturgeon’s party, the Guardian understands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/06/johnson-no-covid-vaccine-in-scotland-if-snp-had-its-way

I think everyone in Scotland should clap for Boris because where would we be without his selfless actions.

I would love for Sturgeon to do this. Start a long slow sarcastic clap to Boris Johnson every Thursday at 18:00.

bob mcbob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: Scotland and England were independent countries until 1707. From 1603 the same person was King of England and King of Scotland, but each country had its own parliament, government, courts, state church, etc, none of which had any role in the government of the other country. (You could make the comparison today with, say, Canada and Australia, who both have the same person as monarch but who are, nevertheless, two entirely separate countries with their own governments, laws, armies, etc.)

The two countries united to form the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, partly because the Scottish and English parliaments were proposing to enact different laws about who would succeed Queen Anne, if she died without direct heirs, which seemed likely (and, in the event, did actually happen in 1714). In the event the disagreement about who would succeed was resolved but, as long as the crowns were separate, the problem could arise again and at some point in the future different people might succeed to the Scottish and English thrones. This was seen as potentially destabilising.

Tha act of union was also not popular amongst the working class. This was essentially a deal set-up by the professional classes. There were riots in Edinburgh and troops were brought in to control it. Army regiments were also stationed on the border in England and Ireland to be brought in if needed.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/act-of-union-1707/overview/mob-unrest-and-disorder-for-scotland/

rock22

rock22 wrote: »

If it only reaches 60%, when Brexit damage will probably be at it's worst and the continuing lockdown then I fear they would be little change, long term, of a successful referendum outcome.

Brexit damage at its worst? You aint seen nothing yet.

Imreoir2

rock22 wrote: »

I understand the dilemma of supporting our own independence while questioning Scotland. And i do think Scotland will, at some time, have another referendum .
But, as a matter of principle, if the people in a part of a country say then want to break away then surely the people in the rest of that country would have the right to resist the breakup of their country. Otherwise you are very much qualifying what democracy is and means, championing some peoples democratic rights while denying others.
Would you support the independence of Connaught for instance. Or of Galway?
Because if I accept your position then any geographic area can decide strive for independence. And Ireland, which you support, could never defend it's own integrity, any small group could claim independence for a part of the country they have a majority in .

How about the 6 north eastern counties of the island, should Ireland defend its integrity by forcing them to be part of the Republic regardless of what a majority of the people living there think?

Personally, I support the principle of concent even if you don't.

Mr.Nice Guy

rock22 wrote: »

If it only reaches 60%, when Brexit damage will probably be at it's worst and the continuing lockdown then I fear they would be little change, long term, of a successful referendum outcome.

All of the poll indicators suggest the biggest supporters for independence are the younger voters, so I'd say if they're hitting 60% now, then we're looking at circa 70% within another generation. Some might argue support for independence will diminish as they get older on the basis that people tend to become more conservative as they age, but I doubt it. The youth of today are the ones that have been hit hardest by Brexit, and they only have to look at NI to be reminded of the positives of EU membership that they're missing out on. They won't forget, and I doubt they'll forgive.

Soon unionists are going to have to ask themselves whether their tactic of delaying the inevitable second referendum is working, assuming these numbers keep creeping up. At a certain point, the debate will start to move from 'if Scotland votes Yes' to 'when Scotland votes Yes'. Feels to me like we're nearly there now.

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

How about the 6 north eastern counties of the island, should Ireland defend its integrity by forcing them to be part of the Republic regardless of what a majority of the people living there think?

Personally, I support the principle of concent even if you don't.

Well, the choices we get are not necessarily given to us as e would like.

For example, if there is a referendum on some issue, who gets to frame the question, and set the time frame for the campaign? Wo should referee the debate?

Just to take this further with a real example - the abortion question.

In 1983, abortion was put on the agenda by a small group of Catholic fundamentalist - even though there was no question of abortion on the political agenda by any political party at the time. By pitting FF and FG against each other, and weaponising the Catholic Church to sir up the faithfully, and they got a very poor wording put before the people, which passed. A simple wording was not considered poetical enough for the constitution.

It took several referendums over more than thirty years to dilute and eventually overturn the original referendum, due entirely to the fear of politicians to stand up to the fundamentalists. It took the innovation of the Citizen's Assembly to square the circle. The good people came to a result that surprised the politicos, and predicted the will f the people as expressed in the resulting referendum.

If NI are to rejoin Ireland as an all Ireland republic, this needs plenty of planning, and debate, properly moderated.

Consent is not a simple concept when it comes to a referendum.

rock22

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

All of the poll indicators suggest the biggest supporters for independence are the younger voters, so I'd say if they're hitting 60% now, then we're looking at circa 70% within another generation. Some might argue support for independence will diminish as they get older on the basis that people tend to become more conservative as they age, but I doubt it. The youth of today are the ones that have been hit hardest by Brexit, and they only have to look at NI to be reminded of the positives of EU membership that they're missing out on. They won't forget, and I doubt they'll forgive.

Soon unionists are going to have to ask themselves whether their tactic of delaying the inevitable second referendum is working, assuming these numbers keep creeping up. At a certain point, the debate will start to move from 'if Scotland votes Yes' to 'when Scotland votes Yes'. Feels to me like we're nearly there now.

You might be right. Certainly the Scottish I know are probably split along age , with, as you say. the older being more conservative.
The problem with waiting is that the feeling of lose leaving the EU will probably fade. And ii is unlikely to be a straight move from UK to EU membership, there will be a period of independence while Scotland tries to converge with EU financial regulations and alignment with Euro.
The next year will be interesting .

Imreoir2 wrote: »

How about the 6 north eastern counties of the island, should Ireland defend its integrity by forcing them to be part of the Republic regardless of what a majority of the people living there think?

Personally, I support the principle of concent even if you don't.

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by that response to my post. I never mention NI

Imreoir2

rock22 wrote: »

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by that response to my post. I never mention NI

You said "any small group could claim independence for a part of the country they have a majority in."

Which happens to be exactly what happened in NI in 1922. Unionists had a majority in the 6 north eastern counties of Ireland, they did not consent to being part of an independant Ireland and opted out.

The logic of your argument seems to suggest that Ireland had a right to integrity that would have allowed us to force the majority Unionist population of NI into a 32 county Ireland against their will. That standpoint would surely have made it equally as valid for the UK to force Ireland to stay in the UK against our will so that they could preserve the integrity of their country.

The ideology you seem to be suggesting led to a lot of conflict on this island, until we decided to agree with the UK on the principle of consent. I happen to agree with that principle and would take a dim view of any government trying to impose their will against the consent of its people. That applies to NI, to Scotland, or to any other region democratically desiring self determination that you might care to mention.

Mr.Nice Guy

Imreoir2 wrote: »

You said "any small group could claim independence for a part of the country they have a majority in."

Which happens to be exactly what happened in NI in 1922. Unionists had a majority in the 6 north eastern counties of Ireland, they did not consent to being part of an independant Ireland and opted out.

The logic of your argument seems to suggest that Ireland had a right to integrity that would have allowed us to force the majority Unionist population of NI into a 32 county Ireland against their will. That standpoint would surely have made it equally as valid for the UK to force Ireland to stay in the UK against our will so that they could preserve the integrity of their country.

The ideology you seem to be suggesting led to a lot of conflict on this island, until we decided to agree with the UK on the principle of consent. I happen to agree with that principle and would take a dim view of any government trying to impose their will against the consent of its people. That applies to NI, to Scotland, or to any other region democratically desiring self determination that you might care to mention.

The UK never cared about the principle of consent. NI was an artificially created entity designed to preserve power for a minority. Unionists didn't have a majority in 6 counties but in 4, as most people in Fermanagh and Tyrone wanted no part of being in NI.

Also one of the reasons the Treaty was signed was because the Irish delegates were given the impression that a Boundary Commission would create a fairer border, making a redrawn NI so small as to be unlikely to function successfully. That proved another con.

During the Second World War the British were prepared to enter into negotiations for reunification provided de Valera's government offered help. Again, this would have gone against any principle of consent.

It's odd to hear a movement that centred around the phrase 'Ulster Will Fight and Ulster Will be Right' being portrayed as one concerned about the principle of consent.

Imreoir2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The UK never cared about the principle of consent. NI was an artificially created entity designed to preserve power for a minority. Unionists didn't have a majority in 6 counties but in 4, as most people in Fermanagh and Tyrone wanted no part of being in NI.

Also one of the reasons the Treaty was signed was because the Irish delegates were given the impression that a Boundary Commission would create a fairer border, making a redrawn NI so small as to be unlikely to function successfully. That proved another con.

During the Second World War the British were prepared to enter into negotiations for reunification provided de Valera's government offered help. Again, this would have gone against any principle of consent.

It's odd to hear a movement that centred around the phrase 'Ulster Will Fight and Ulster Will be Right' being portrayed as one concerned about the principle of consent.

Thr principle of consent in relation to the constitutional future of NI was agreed in the GFA in 1998. I make no claims about the UK acting in accordance to the principle of consent prior to that. Churchill was an imperialist and more happy to trade territory as a pawn to achieve his policy objectives. The opinions of the natives were irrelevant to his calculations.

View

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The UK never cared about the principle of consent. NI was an artificially created entity designed to preserve power for a minority. Unionists didn't have a majority in 6 counties but in 4, as most people in Fermanagh and Tyrone wanted no part of being in NI.

Also one of the reasons the Treaty was signed was because the Irish delegates were given the impression that a Boundary Commission would create a fairer border, making a redrawn NI so small as to be unlikely to function successfully. That proved another con.

During the Second World War the British were prepared to enter into negotiations for reunification provided de Valera's government offered help. Again, this would have gone against any principle of consent.

It's odd to hear a movement that centred around the phrase 'Ulster Will Fight and Ulster Will be Right' being portrayed as one concerned about the principle of consent.

Every single county, region and nation on the planet are artificially created entities, so applying that criticism to NI is a bit silly.

Moreover, even if you got every single DUP voter to agree with you NI was an artificially created entity when it was created, that doesn’t mean they’d (or many others in NI would) vote to abolish it today, just as people here aren’t going to vote to abolish the artificially created entity that is (the Republic of) Ireland.

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

Every single county, region and nation on the planet are artificially created entities, so applying that criticism to NI is a bit silly.

Moreover, even if you got every single DUP voter to agree with you NI was an artificially created entity when it was created, that doesn’t mean they’d (or many others in NI would) vote to abolish it today, just as people here aren’t going to vote to abolish the artificially created entity that is (the Republic of) Ireland.

There are two areas that might be worth looking at: the Basque country and the Kurdish nation.

Now the Basque region is divided into two - one area in France and the rest in Spain. The Spanish side are looking for independence, but the French side are not. It might be worth studying why that would be.

The Kurdish nation are spread over three countries - Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. There may be some in Iran. They should be united into one country, but each of the countries that house them have gone to war against their own population and neighbouring Kurds to prevent it. It is intractable because of that. If Syria granted them independence, Turkey would (and have) invaded to stop it.

In the question at issue on this thread, it is quite clear that Scotland is a separate country from England, with different laws (and legal structures) and different customs (the men wear skirts), and a different language (Gallic and even when they speak their version of English).

That is sufficient for me to say Scotland should be independent, if enough of them think they should.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are two areas that might be worth looking at: the Basque country and the Kurdish nation.

Now the Basque region is divided into two - one area in France and the rest in Spain. The Spanish side are looking for independence, but the French side are not. It might be worth studying why that would be.

The Kurdish nation are spread over three countries - Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. There may be some in Iran. They should be united into one country, but each of the countries that house them have gone to war against their own population and neighbouring Kurds to prevent it. It is intractable because of that. If Syria granted them independence, Turkey would (and have) invaded to stop it.

In the question at issue on this thread, it is quite clear that Scotland is a separate country from England, with different laws (and legal structures) and different customs (the men wear skirts), and a different language (Gallic and even when they speak their version of English).

That is sufficient for me to say Scotland should be independent, if enough of them think they should.

The Middle East (especially what used to be called Asia Minor) and much of Africa are both still coping with the arbitary lines that colonists drew on maps. with no regard for ethnicity. The Kurds have a genuine grievance. They are clearly different (non Arab) and they were granted their own state after WW1. But that was over-ridden when the borders of Turkey were re-drawn, leaving them as minorities in three or four newly created countries and victimised in all of them.

The Basques in Spain have less of a point. Spain is made up of many former kingdoms and ethnicities - the Catalans being the noisiest - but go 100k in any direction in Spain and you will find differences in history, ethnicity, language, culture and food. But each region is unsustainable as a separate country and most of them know that.

The Scots and English have different origins but those are largely obliterated now and they already occupy separate lands. The UK is a marriage of geographic and economic convenience, not an ethnic melting pot. The argument for independence isn't based on racial difference.

Mr.Nice Guy

View wrote: »

Every single county, region and nation on the planet are artificially created entities, so applying that criticism to NI is a bit silly.

Moreover, even if you got every single DUP voter to agree with you NI was an artificially created entity when it was created, that doesn’t mean they’d (or many others in NI would) vote to abolish it today, just as people here aren’t going to vote to abolish the artificially created entity that is (the Republic of) Ireland.

It's not silly at all. The UK and unionists were content to see Ireland as the national unit when they were getting their way, e.g. when denying Home Rule despite the clear majority of the island wanting it for decades. As soon as it became clear that the same rules which denied Home Rule were going to pave the way for it, unionists, aided by their friends in London, did as they so often do and changed the goalposts, insisting partition was now necessary, and threatening violence. That is how NI was born.

We're now starting to see similar mischievous talk being applied to the Scottish independence debate, with articles on how the Shetlands might continue under Westminster rule. Classic divide and conquer tactics from the Tories.

Sam Russell

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's not silly at all. The UK and unionists were content to see Ireland as the national unit when they were getting their way, e.g. when denying Home Rule despite the clear majority of the island wanting it for decades. As soon as it became clear that the same rules which denied Home Rule were going to pave the way for it, unionists, aided by their friends in London, did as they so often do and changed the goalposts, insisting partition was now necessary, and threatening violence. That is how NI was born.

We're now starting to see similar mischievous talk being applied to the Scottish independence debate, with articles on how the Shetlands might continue under Westminster rule. Classic divide and conquer tactics from the Tories.

Would not the Shetlands want to be allied with the Faroes rather than Westminster? What possible benefit would the Shetlands gain from being tied to those loons in Westminster?

I'd bet that Raab does not even know where the Shetlands are. Plenty of Englanders confused the Faroes and the Falklands in the run up to the Falklands/Malvinas war waged by Thatcher in 1982.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Shetlands council vote in Sept last year had its fair share of unionists advocate independence for Shetland from Scotland. It is as Nr. Nice guy above stated, the classic divide and conquer methodology

https://www.thenational.scot/news/18711945.fact-check-shetland-islands-really-want-break-away-scotland/

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would not the Shetlands want to be allied with the Faroes rather than Westminster? What possible benefit would the Shetlands gain from being tied to those loons in Westminster?

The three bit ticket items are fishing, oil&gas and tourism.

History shows how Scottish oil profits went south.

Brexit has seen huge problems for fishing from Cornish shellfishers who will miss the season waiting for paperwork to Scotland fishermen who are looking at sending their catch to landfill because there's no paperwork.

Bet they are jealous of the deal the Faroe Islands negotiated with the UK.

View

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's not silly at all. The UK and unionists were content to see Ireland as the national unit when they were getting their way, e.g. when denying Home Rule despite the clear majority of the island wanting it for decades. As soon as it became clear that the same rules which denied Home Rule were going to pave the way for it, unionists, aided by their friends in London, did as they so often do and changed the goalposts, insisting partition was now necessary, and threatening violence. That is how NI was born.

We're now starting to see similar mischievous talk being applied to the Scottish independence debate, with articles on how the Shetlands might continue under Westminster rule. Classic divide and conquer tactics from the Tories.

Again that doesn’t alter the fact that every political boundary on the planet is an artificial creation/entity.

One could just as easily argue - and historical our self styled “republicans” did argue - that the Irish Free State/Republic of Ireland were/are artificial creations but that doesn’t alter the fact that such an artificial creation happened, nor does it mean that a majority here would rush to the polls today to abolish the “artificial creation” that is Ireland.

And equally the same applies in NI today since, despite the decades since its creation - be that “artificial” or not - and despite a fair few political shocks during that time such as Brexit, there is no indication that a majority there would be willing to vote to end its existence.

Water John

'The Basques in Spain have less of a point. Spain is made up of many former kingdoms and ethnicities - the Catalans being the noisiest - but go 100k in any direction in Spain and you will find differences in history, ethnicity, language, culture and food. But each region is unsustainable as a separate country and most of them know that.' First Up.

By your logic none of the ex Yugoslavia countries would be viable.

BonnieSituation

Water John wrote: »

'The Basques in Spain have less of a point. Spain is made up of many former kingdoms and ethnicities - the Catalans being the noisiest - but go 100k in any direction in Spain and you will find differences in history, ethnicity, language, culture and food. But each region is unsustainable as a separate country and most of them know that.' First Up.

By your logic none of the ex Yugoslavia countries would be viable.

I wonder what the definition of viable is in the mind of Unionsts?

Water John

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I wonder what the definition of viable is in the mind of Unionsts?

The problem for NI is that it's very highly skewed to public service Govn't jobs.