Scottish independence

Mr.Nice Guy

The Littlejohn piece was just a childish rant but the part that left me scratching my head was when he said, referring to the English and Scots, 'we have the same values'. The two countries have never had more disparate values in modern times! The elections in May will highlight that beyond doubt.

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

Is the Scottish Head of State not the Queen?

There is no Scottish state and, therefore, no Scottish head of State.

When there's a Scottish state, the Scots will decide who the head will be.

At the time of the 2014 referendum, the proposal of the Scottish government was that Scotland would initially become independent with a provisional constitution under which Scotland would be a Commonwealth realm, with the UK monarch as queen (like, say, New Zealand). A constitutional convention would then be elected to draft a permanent constitutions, which would be put to the people for adoption in a referendum. That constitution would presumably deal with whether Scotland should continue to be a Commonwealth realm or whether it should become a republic and, if so, what the powers and functions of the president would be and how the president would be chosenl.

I expect if there's another referendum in the next few years, that approach will be adopted again. The SNP will probably want to disentanble the question of whether Scotland should be independent from the question of whether, in the long term, an independent Scotland should be a monarchy or a republic.

Peregrinus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why would there be though ?

If the main support for independence comes from the Brexit outcome then many from outside will see Scottish independence as being driven by people's inability to respect the democratic outcome of a referendum.

Indeed. If only Brexiters had tried to craft and implement a form of Brexit that respected the referendum result, I very much doubt that Scottish independence would be back on the agenda in the way that it is now.

breatheme

If the Queen died and Charles ascended I think a lot more people would readily give up the monarchy though.

pixelburp

Aegir wrote: »

In fairness to little Johnny, he treats pretty much everyone with equal amounts of contempt.

Edit. That awesome. Spellcheck changes littlejohn to little Johnny

Littlejohn and his ilk are seasoned well-poisoners and his "contempt" has, IMO, informed a lot of the utterly misguided hostility towards the EU by way of example - antagonism that ultimately steered heads to Brexit. Years of bullshít ranting about bendy bananas, helmets for trapeze artists and the general baseline that "Brussels" were up to no good, egged on by those Germans (and didn't we beat them in WW2 / 1966?)

Now he's turning his head towards Scotland, and Nichola Sturgeon; showing a contemptuous lack of respect towards an elected leader, in a manner that will only drive more wedges between the Scots and English. As easily evident by the comments section of that very article. The leering joy in nicknames for Sturgeon really show that ultimately, when the veil is dropped, the UK is NOT a union of equals and never has been. It's England, Westminister and those north of the border should be grateful for Pax Britannica's firm benevolence.

I agree that revolution of England's own legislative bodies is needed to head off the sense of disparity across the island; certainly, ancapailldorcha's federalisation spitball is a good one. But like America, England's biggest flaw is part of its biggest strength as a nation. It's steeped and soaked in a sense of "tradition" as a kind of national armour, and like any nation wedded to a romantic ideal dating back centuries, is near impossible to reform or change for the better without the issue quickly devolving into one of identity. Like, the idea of a Citizen's Assembly like our own feels almost impossible in England.

PommieBast

breatheme wrote: »

If the Queen died and Charles ascended I think a lot more people would readily give up the monarchy though.

I don't particularly care for the monarchy either way but I certainly get that impression. Even when I was living in New Zealand I was hearing noises about lack of enthusiasm for him.

bob mcbob

pixelburp wrote: »

Littlejohn and his ilk are seasoned well-poisoners and his "contempt" has, IMO, informed a lot of the utterly misguided hostility towards the EU by way of example - antagonism that ultimately steered heads to Brexit. Years of bullshít ranting about bendy bananas, helmets for trapeze artists and the general baseline that "Brussels" were up to no good, egged on by those Germans (and didn't we beat them in WW2 / 1966?)

Now he's turning his head towards Scotland, and Nichola Sturgeon; showing a contemptuous lack of respect towards an elected leader, in a manner that will only drive more wedges between the Scots and English. As easily evident by the comments section of that very article. The leering joy in nicknames for Sturgeon really show that ultimately, when the veil is dropped, the UK is NOT a union of equals and never has been. It's England, Westminister and those north of the border should be grateful for Pax Britannica's firm benevolence.

I agree that revolution of England's own legislative bodies is needed to head off the sense of disparity across the island; certainly, ancapailldorcha's federalisation spitball is a good one. But like America, England's biggest flaw is part of its biggest strength as a nation. It's steeped and soaked in a sense of "tradition" as a kind of national armour, and like any nation wedded to a romantic ideal dating back centuries, is near impossible to reform or change for the better without the issue quickly devolving into one of identity. Like, the idea of a Citizen's Assembly like our own feels almost impossible in England.

Absolutely the whole English nationalism sect is built on an external enemy who are (uncountable bureaucrats = EU) or (ungrateful bunch squandering our money = Scots). It saves having to face up to the real issues facing England.

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

Absolutely the whole English nationalism sect is built on an external enemy who are (uncountable bureaucrats = EU) or (ungrateful bunch squandering our money = Scots). It saves having to face up to the real issues facing England.

And Scottish nationalism is what?

Pretty much all nationalism is based on “those lot are ****, we can do it better without them”.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

And Scottish nationalism is what?

Pretty much all nationalism is based on “those lot are ****, we can do it better without them”.

Not necessarily. Nationalism can be pride in one's culture, in those things that are only found in one's nation. It might be single malt whisky, or kilts, or the style of dancing, tossing the caber, or even haggis, tatties, or sneeps.

It does not need to be 'othering' non-nationals. I do not get the impression the Scots are into that.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not necessarily. Nationalism can be pride in one's culture, in those things that are only found in one's nation. It might be single malt whisky, or kilts, or the style of dancing, tossing the caber, or even haggis, tatties, or sneeps.

It does not need to be 'othering' non-nationals. I do not get the impression the Scots are into that.

Last time I was in Scotland they had haggis, kilts, beeps and tatties aplenty, so why do they need independence then?

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

Last time I was in Scotland they had haggis, kilts, beeps and tatties aplenty, so why do they need independence then?

They need it to escape being ruled by the majority of English nationalists at Westminster who pass legislation re Scotland and prevent the elected MPs from Scotland even speaking on the matter.

No nation could tolerate that - no matter how much single malt whisky they have.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

They need it to escape being ruled by the majority of English nationalists at Westminster who pass legislation re Scotland and prevent the elected MPs from Scotland even speaking on the matter.

No nation could tolerate that - no matter how much single malt whisky they have.

so "Those lot are ****, we can do it better"?

pixelburp

Aegir wrote: »

And Scottish nationalism is what?

Pretty much all nationalism is based on “those lot are ****, we can do it better without them”.

That's a reduction, and feels like you're moving the goalposts with this and your follow-up. If the UK is to survive, then first the English need to stamp out this tabloid through-line that says the Scots should know their place. Littlejohn is not an aberrant opinion, and we had our own taste during brexit when a deeply racist, anti Irish sentiment crept into the public "discourse" there.

All nationalism has the power to morph into jingoism and antagonism, the balance is embracing the positive while resisting a sense of hostility or paranoia; fundamentally though, the current Scottish form of this is keen to express a desire to finally cast off the remaining shackles of a nominal union - one that, as said above, often casts Scots as ungrateful toads who should bow to Westminster.

To be clear, I think the nation state is a regressive, outdated entity and would embrace full EU federalism tomorrow, but that's my long term view. Short term, Scottish Identity tied to London itself feels regressive and outdated, especially when the relationship is so obviously toxic.

Lumen

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not necessarily. Nationalism can be pride in one's culture, in those things that are only found in one's nation. It might be single malt whisky, or kilts, or the style of dancing, tossing the caber, or even haggis, tatties, or sneeps.

It does not need to be 'othering' non-nationals. I do not get the impression the Scots are into that.

I think there is usually a distinction between nationalism pursued within a dependent state for the purposes of self-determination (Scottish nationalism) vs nationalism in an already self-determined state for the purposes of....what? (English nationalism)

Once you have self-determination, what is the goal? Either the nationalism dies away, to be replaced by ordinary inoffensive national pride (as exhibited by Irish people, for the most part) or it is twisted into the darker, more exclusionary form.

Maybe I'm misreading the SNP, but they don't really seem the type to be about to morph into the Scottish BNP if they get independence.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

That's a reduction, and feels like you're moving the goalposts with this and your follow-up. If the UK is to survive, then first the English need to stamp out this tabloid through-line that says the Scots should know their place. Littlejohn is not an aberrant opinion, and we had our own taste during brexit when a deeply racist, anti Irish sentiment crept into the public "discourse" there.

I'm not moving goal posts at all. This just boils down to "Our nationalism is good, yours is bad". at the end of the day, it is all about the same thing, themmuns are bastards and are treating us badly.

Why else would this thread dedicate so much time to portraying the English Nationalist Tory party as treating the Scots badly?

You'll have to provide some evidence of this deeply racist, anti Irish sentiment that crept in to the argument. from what I could tell there was far more anti English sentiment, but that is still perfectly acceptable in Irish society, but any criticism of anyone Irish is viewed as being racist.

The phrase being able to give it, but not take it does spring to mind.

pixelburp wrote: »

All nationalism has the power to morph into jingoism and antagonism, the balance is embracing the positive while resisting a sense of hostility or paranoia; fundamentally though, the current Scottish form of this is keen to express a desire to finally cast off the remaining shackles of a nominal union - one that, as said above, often casts Scots as ungrateful toads who should bow to Westminster.

and where is that portrayed, or is it another example of themmuns treating us badly, we need freeeedom?

pixelburp wrote: »

To be clear, I think the nation state is a regressive, outdated entity and would embrace full EU federalism tomorrow, but that's my long term view. Short term, Scottish Identity tied to London itself feels regressive and outdated, especially when the relationship is so obviously toxic.

the relationship is toxic why? because the SNP and pro independence posters seem to think it is and have gone out of their way to give that impression?

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

I think there is usually a distinction between nationalism pursued within a dependent state for the purposes of self-determination (Scottish nationalism) vs nationalism in an already self-determined state for the purposes of....what? (English nationalism)

Once you have self-determination, what is the goal? Either the nationalism dies away, to be replaced by ordinary inoffensive national pride (as exhibited by Irish people, for the most part) or it is twisted into the darker, more exclusionary form.

Maybe I'm misreading the SNP, but they don't really seem the type to be about to morph into the Scottish BNP if they get independence.

Does England have self determination then?

Why would English nationalism morph in a new version of the BNP?

Is this another "Your nationalism is bad, mine is good"?

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

And Scottish nationalism is what?

Pretty much all nationalism is based on “those lot are ****, we can do it better without them”.

From my experience there is a big difference between small country and big country nationalism.

small country nationalism is we are as good as everyone else

big country nationalism is we are better than everyone else

Big difference

Lumen

Aegir wrote: »

Does England have self determination then?

Practically speaking yes, since it dominates the Union. So in my view English nationalism is the nasty form of nationalism.

Aegir wrote: »

Why would English nationalism morph in a new version of the BNP?

BNP and EDL were/are both effectively English nationalist, and I think both had the same leader, Nick Griffin.

I've never come across a pleasant English nationalist. There are a few relatively benign flag wavers in the areas around military bases but I wouldn't want to probe their psychology too deeply.

Anyway, I can't really see that happening in Scotland.

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Practically speaking yes, since it dominates the Union. So in my view English nationalism is the nasty form of nationalism.



BNP and EDL were/are both effectively English nationalist, and I think both had the same leader, Nick Griffin.

I've never come across a pleasant English nationalist. There are a few relatively benign flag wavers in the areas around military bases but I wouldn't want to probe their psychology too deeply.

Anyway, I can't really see that happening in Scotland.

Again, your nationalism bad, mine good.

Irish nationalists have bombed shopping centres and murdered police and prison officers.

Do they represent all Irish nationalists? No they do not. Similarly the EDL do not represent all English nationalists.

Peregrinus

There are different concepts of nationalism, and it is important to be clear about what we mean by the term.

In mainstream political science, nationalism is most commonly used to refer to the belief that each nation has the moral right (and, in many expressions of nationalism, the moral obligation) to govern itself through an autonomous state. Thus, if Scotland is a nation, it has the right to (or positively ought to) separate itself from the UK and establish an autonomous Scottish state to govern itself.

This view, at least in so far as it asserts a nation's moral right, is fairly widely accepted. It's enshrined in international law as the righ to self-determination, and it has been very influential in shaping the politics of the modern world. The existence of the Irish state is attributable to nationalism; the same could be said for Germany, Italy, Poland, the Baltic states, Norway, Iceland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, all of the countries of former Yugoslavia, etc. Europe is a continent deeply marked by nationalism.

But nationalism can also mean advocacy of the interests of one's own nation in priority to those of other nations, and it can even mean seeking to subordinate the interests of other nations to those of your own. Europe has also been marked by that kind of aggressive, competitive nationalism. Liberal nationalists would argue that these forms of nationalism are not authentic nationalism; that a nationalism which asserts the right of one's own nation to autonomy must also respect the right of other nations to a similar autonomy; that if you only recognise or accept the rights of your own nation you are not a true nationalist; you're just a bigot.

One view of a project like the European Union is that it seeks to affirm the liberal form of nationalism while erecting safeguards in against aggressive or competitive nationalism by building a "Europe of the nations" which promotes common interests (like a shared economy - the Single Market), common values and shared institutions.

In the context of Scotland, the movement for Scottish independence is a very orthodox application of the liberal nationalist ideal. Once you accept that Scotland is a nation, it follows that Scotland can assert a right to independence, and that other nations should respect and accept this. Within the UK, this was effectively conceded in 2014, when Westminister legislated for a Scottish independence referendum; a recognition of Scotland's right to decide on its independence. (Indeed, it's strongly arguable that the principle was conceded in 1919-22, when Ireland left the UK by its own choice and the UK (eventually) accepted that.) Once that principle is conceded, it becomes hard to deny further independence referendums, because on what basis can Westminister tell the Scots that they no longer have a right to decide this question? You can argue that repeated referendums are destablising, but that's an argument that the Scots shouldn't repeatedly revisit the question, not an argument that they shouldn't be allowed to.

Opposition to Scottish independence is not necessarily driven by a rival nationalism - there are obviously lots of Scots unionists, who fully identify as Scottish but oppose independence on the grounds that they don't think it's in the interests of Scotland, whether for economic or other reasons.

Similarly, an English person might take the view that independence would be an unwise choice for Scotland and, harbouring nothing but goodwill for Scotland, he might therefore desire that Scotland should not become independent. That wouldn't be a nationalist position either.

But on what basis would an English person argue that Scotland should not be allowed to choose independence? He can only do that by denying that the Scots have a right to make this choice (and, as noted, that ship has sailed in Westminster) or by arguing that the rights of the Scots must be subordinated to some more weighty consideration. And that consideration is usually going to be, in one form or another, the interests of his own nation; it is not to the advantage of his nation that Scotland should leave the Union. And there, of course, we start to shade into the aggressive, exclusive forms of nationalism.

Lumen

Aegir wrote: »

Similarly the EDL do not represent all English nationalists.

Do you have any examples of prominent "good" English nationalists?

StanHansen

Lumen wrote: »

Do you have any examples of prominent "good" English nationalists?

Libertarians.

Lumen

StanHansen wrote: »

Libertarians.

Who, specifically?

Lumen

Lumen wrote: »

Do you have any examples of prominent "good" English nationalists?

that is a difficult question to answer.

English nationalism just isn't prominent in itself, outside of a few unsavoury characters.

This is one of the reasons why I believe there should be an English parliament, somewhere that a moderate English nationalist party can campaign solely for the rights of England, without building up in to issues such as Brexit.

All the English see, is the British Parliament bending over backwards to make consessions to the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh governments, while practically ignoring any issues in England.

Tax take per head in England is higher than the other four regions, but spending per head is lower. England also has the largest average consituency size in the UK, which means proportionally, they are under represented in Westminster. If England were given an actual budget, the same as Scotland, then it would give clarity as to who gets what and why and it would mean the people in England having to resort to less drastic measure to make themselves noticed.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

that is a difficult question to answer.

English nationalism just isn't prominent in itself, outside of a few unsavoury characters.

This is one of the reasons why I believe there should be an English parliament, somewhere that a moderate English nationalist party can campaign solely for the rights of England, without building up in to issues such as Brexit.

All the English see, is the British Parliament bending over backwards to make consessions to the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh governments, while practically ignoring any issues in England.

Tax take per head in England is higher than the other four regions, but spending per head is lower. England also has the largest average consituency size in the UK, which means proportionally, they are under represented in Westminster. If England were given an actual budget, the same as Scotland, then it would give clarity as to who gets what and why and it would mean the people in England having to resort to less drastic measure to make themselves noticed.

The problem with treating England as a single entity for devolved Gov is that it varies too much regionally. Northumberland, or Cornwall has quite different problems than say East Anglia or London.

If England were to go for devolution, it would have to be on a multi-regional basis, and using the the same model as Scotland - that is devolving the same powers.

It is incongruous to see the UK Prime Minister giving the English Covid presentation for England that does not include anything outside England, yet he is PM for he whole of the UK.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

The problem with treating England as a single entity for devolved Gov is that it varies too much regionally. Northumberland, or Cornwall has quite different problems than say East Anglia or London.

If England were to go for devolution, it would have to be on a multi-regional basis, and using the the same model as Scotland - that is devolving the same powers.

It is incongruous to see the UK Prime Minister giving the English Covid presentation for England that does not include anything outside England, yet he is PM for he whole of the UK.

every country is diverse.

Does Kerry have the same issues as Donegal? do either of them having anything remotely in common with the issues in Dublin?

Hell, my parents have neighbours from Thurso, you think they give a flying **** about the hospital waiting lists in Glasgow?

There is a limit to the level at which you can break down administration, otherwise you just effectively create glorified councils.

dogbert27

Sam Russell wrote: »

The problem with treating England as a single entity for devolved Gov is that it varies too much regionally. Northumberland, or Cornwall has quite different problems than say East Anglia or London.

If England were to go for devolution, it would have to be on a multi-regional basis, and using the the same model as Scotland - that is devolving the same powers.

It is incongruous to see the UK Prime Minister giving the English Covid presentation for England that does not include anything outside England, yet he is PM for he whole of the UK.

When it suits him to be is clearly what we see with attitudes towards NI, Wales and Scotland.

Sturgeon doesn't want him travelling to Scotland due to Scotland's Covid restrictions but the Tories say he's the PM for the UK and go where he likes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9196311/Boris-Johnson-defies-Nicola-Sturgeon-visit-Scotland.html

Sturgeon is right, in this particular moment it is not an essential trip for him to be making.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

every country is diverse.

Does Kerry have the same issues as Donegal? do either of them having anything remotely in common with the issues in Dublin?

Hell, my parents have neighbours from Thurso, you think they give a flying **** about the hospital waiting lists in Glasgow?

There is a limit to the level at which you can break down administration, otherwise you just effectively create glorified councils.

When one devolved nation is 5 million people, and the undevolved nation is 50 million people, there is a problem that needs addressing.

The UK has a very deep democratic deficit from its absence of a written constitution that relies on precedent (and if a convenient one cannot be found, than one can be invented as there is little chance of oversight) - to the FPTP voting system that has meant that no single party government has had a popular vote majority since 1932 - to the unelected second chamber that has hereditary peer, bishops of the established church, appointed life peers who are retired politicians, party donors, or chums of the PM.

There is more chance of democracy in the proposed devolved regions of England than exists in the current UK parliament.

Scotland has had enough of the overbearance of an arrogant English majoritarianism. Just because England has the votes in the HoC, they dictate to Scotland.

dogbert27

dogbert27 wrote: »

When it suits him to be is clearly what we see with attitudes towards NI, Wales and Scotland.

Sturgeon doesn't want him travelling to Scotland due to Scotland's Covid restrictions but the Tories say he's the PM for the UK and go where he likes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9196311/Boris-Johnson-defies-Nicola-Sturgeon-visit-Scotland.html

Sturgeon is right, in this particular moment it is not an essential trip for him to be making.

Damned if you do....

if he goes, he is ignoring travel advice, if he doesn't then he is ignoring Scotland.

either way = Freeeeeedoooooom

dogbert27

dogbert27 wrote: »

He's already demonstrated that he's ignored Scotland numerous times so he could have flipped this and said he respects Scotland's Covid restrictions.

in what way has he ignored Scotland?