the Union Forever?
today is the 300th anniversery of the union which saw the formation of Great Britain. there have been a lot of calls for Scottish independance (mostly from the SNP, which the BBC seems to give disproportionally large coverage) and apparantly a growing number of the English want to cut out the 'parasite'.
Being Welsh I don't really care about nationalistic arguments. Personally, I am opposed to the breaking up of the UK (although not particularly where N. Ireland is concerned) as I do not see any real benefits to it. What do the Scottish (plural?) here think about the Union and would they (he?) like to see it abolished or maintained? |
Re: the Union Forever?
I'm Welsh and I wouldn't support the breaking up of the UK, I see myself as Welsh first but also British and European. The nationalistic arguments seem silly and there doesn't really seem to be a huge economic/political advantage to Wales breaking away, besides most of our politicians are incompetent and off knobbing teenage Romanians.
I hope the they hold a referendum and the SNP is soundly thrashed and never speak of it again like Bloc Québécois in the 1990s. My question is do Scottish people really see themselves as that different to people born in Essex or Swansea ? After 300 years of the union with the world increasingly becoming smaller and more integrated it seems an odd time to bring it up. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Sorry, but i dont feel british, and nothing anyone can do or say will change my mind.
Probably stems from my complete and utter rejection of and my distaste for Britain's history, and current foreign policy. |
Re: the Union Forever?
I'm not sure what Scotland hopes to gain out of becoming independent.
Sure, it might have been realistic when they could have claimed the North Sea and the oil there as "theirs", but what do they really hope for by becoming independent, now it's pretty much exhausted? How is it supposed to improve the average Scot's life? It's also hilarious (and yet not at all) how, in a period of time such as this where harmony and cooperation is encouraged across the world with the EU and transport links such as the Channel Tunnel, how the ****ing Scottish are fighting against something which was worked perfectly well for 300 years. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Id say the introduction of concentration camps, the toleration of hitler, imperialism, colonialism, the derailing of the european project and tagging on to America's oil wars has worked brilliantly!
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Just to be clear, i dont absolve Scotland of blame in any of the above - not that 'Scotland' is or was in any position to object.
Nor do i presume 'Scotland' to be some sort of utopian state that wouldnt act scandalously in the name of self interest. However, whether people like it or not, the truth is the center ground in Scotland is considerably left of the center ground in Britain as a whole. Scotland as an independant country wouldnt have gone to war with America in Iraq, is a pretty prominent example. |
Re: the Union Forever?
I think the people of Scotland were in a position to object to some of the crimes that you listed. Many of those have occurred during a time of considerable political freedom yet I've rarely seen Scottish people out in force protesting against them despite making up a disproportionately large amount of the armed forces.
Scotland as an independent country wouldn't have had the capacity to go to war with Iraq, it would be about as relevant as New Zealand (England wouldn't be much better placed). I also think that it's impossible to make any predictions about how Scotland would have responded to the Iraq war had it been independent, I don't think anyone can say make up of Scotland would have evolved had it not been part of the Union or been granted independence at a much earlier date. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Where exactly would this Scottish Army be based and trained? |
Re: the Union Forever?
The politics of nationalism are absurd, and anyone who thinks arbitary geographic location within a country absolves or condemns them of whatever their country did is an idiot.
Quote:
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Without being dragged into british wars, there would be less scope for an extensive scottish army. Quote:
b/ brilliant. If relevance means power projection, then im happy to be irrelevant Quote:
Also, what? |
Re: the Union Forever?
I'm highly in favour of the union remaining, with devolution revoked and a return to the days of the Scottish office, simply because it's simple, avoids constitutional confusion and wastes less money.
Quote:
Talk of Independence/devolution from my point of view is just a gimmick to gain votes by playing on nationalism, and nothing more. Ultimately it's a move that would be utterly counterproductive for both sides of the border, probably less so for England economically but more so on the international stage. Scotland would probably come out the better of the two if I had to make a choice. The fact that labour even allowed the suggestion of devolution in the first place is scandalous. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Im somewhat indifferent to nationalisation. I do think however that if the majority of the population votes for it - it should happen. thats the point in having a vote after all, right? to do what the populace wants
Improved devolution is something i do want though. A seperate english, welsh, N.I and scottish parliament which vote on issues which solely affect those countries. there is no sense in scottish MPs being allowed to vote on things which will not affect scotland. Issues which affect britain as a whole should be voted on as normal in westminster. I think the main reason brown is so opposed to scottish independance is that he would lose the right to vote on issues in england - and as the prospective leader of the labour party this is somewhat embarassing. Furthermore without the scottish labour votes he might have a hard time pushing anything through. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Labour policy bites Labour in the arse
Who would have thought FFS |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Nationalism isn't about being the master race, just being 'unique' and wanting/pointing/declaring the differences between 'you' and 'them', you want to seperate your problems with history with your love for your geographic area, despite that area being an intrinsic part of said history. Quote:
|
Re: the Union Forever?
If you don't agree with your nation's foreign policy form your own nation! It's all about small vaguely defined groups getting what they want. God knows we need more of that in politics today.
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
|
Re: the Union Forever?
I herby declare war on your nation state lokken, your fists of fury have been a threat to world peace for long enough.
|
Re: the Union Forever?
The legitimate argument for Scottish independence isn't about foreign policy, it isn't about economics, and it isn't really about representation. It's about self-identification, which does not mean nationalism. Deffeh, for instance, sees himself exclusively as a Scot, and not as part of Britain. Presently, he is compelled to 'be' British, legally and through regularly supplied and moderately harmless propaganda, although this is not something he takes pride in. Were he alone in wishing to resolve this situation through independence it would be time to reach for a small violin. However, given that this is the will of an apparent majority, Westminster is presently withholding the right to self-determination. The same could be said of Wales, Cornwall and so forth if a majority came to wish for independence.
The point about Scotland being to the left of England is facetious though; you may note that there's no 'Scotland and Tyne & Wear' independence movement. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Self-determination in terms of geographically based groups is a confused idea which does not hold up*. The question of where and how boundary lines are drawn within which groups exist which can self-determine is nonsensical. Self determination is an individual concept which does not involve others. Deffeh saying he's scottish means he identifies himself as part of a cultural heritage, person X saying he's british means he lives in the nation-state commonly identified as Britain (among other possibilities).
*You can pretty much see this from how the words actually conflict. Decisions you make can't retroactively decide upon pre-existing boundaries. It's circular logic. |
Re: the Union Forever?
The reason the bbc is giving it major coverage is because the Labour Party are TERRIFIED of it happening.
Two high level, high profile ministers commenting on it in one week is like a large neon arrow pointing at the story. And why are these two ministers and their whole party so worried? ... it isn't because unwashed depressives on prescription drugs in Scotland like to say stupid things pretending that an independant scotland would make their life have a point ... Oooooooooooooh no. It's because Labour can't win an election without Scotland. If the union falls apart (which incidentally it's not going to, but the politicians are so worried that their stress is palpable) then England becomes a one party state. |
Re: the Union Forever?
On the issue of an 'english parliament' I hope and trust that English people have more sense.
I've read the full newsnight poll and the much publicised question is quite misleadingly phrased. also the rest of the poll questions make it quite obvious that the majority in all 3 countries taking part of the poll do not support breaking up the union (a point not mentioned). The reason an english parliament is a bad and silly idea is quite simple - it will cost a lot of money. It would require heroic levels of collective irrationality for such a proposition to win a referendum. |
Re: the Union Forever?
The Scots traditionally have a more independant mind set, i surmise the whole hadrians wall has something to do with it, along with their monarchy surviving longer, and a clan mind set, their better and longer friendly connections with the french and historically a bit more independant history than other sections of the UK. (i'm ignoring Ireland in that, synopsis)
Now dont get me wrong, i find nothing wrong with that, pride in your culture and history is good, it gives u a sense of belonging and empowerment. And if i firmly believed that Scotland and Wales were better off without being in the UK, i'd parade up the streets with them in their defence, but i dont, on some points they would be, but on a majority they would not. (On the Irish issue i dont believe we should still be there and a united Irish Nation would be the best thing for them ) |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
For scottish issues, scots mps vote in the ( traversty ) scottish parliament building. for english issues, english mps vote in westminster ,etc Surely it costs roughly the same for them all to be voting in the same place on issues , Its not like you would need a special building for them |
Re: the Union Forever?
This has all flared up because of the constitutional anomaly whereby the entire Westminster parliament (including Scots and Welsh) can vote on issues of, say, health or education, when the policy decided upon would only apply to England (and would only apply in Scotland or Wales if voted for by their own parliament/assembly). This seems to be somewhat unfair.
The answer to the constitutional question is, in my opinion, fairly simple. Westminster needs to give up its role in health, education and other similar policy areas. It has already done this in Scotland and Wales, and could do so in England by devolving such powers down to local government (in a perfect fantasy world, we would also reinstitute the county system of local government and have basically self-governing counties so far as health/education/etc. was concerned). Departments like Health and Education are, in fact, only fairly recent inventions (in the grand scheme of things) and don't fulfil any vital constitutional function. Local control over services makes vastly more sense than trying to run things from Westminster/Whitehall anyway. Bingo, West Lothian question answered, because we would never get (as we do now) Scots MPs voting on, say, 'British' health issues which in fact only affect England. If Westminster was only responsible for truly Britain-wide issues such as defence, law and order and the like, there would be no grounds for complaint. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm Quote:
If you ask them whether they want independance then they say yes. If you ask them whether they want to break up the union then they say no. I think it was Midge5 who pointed out what a joke the Welsh Assembly is as only 560,000 people voted for it in any case. (details here) What noone here has mentioned either is the very amusing story that the French PM proposed a union between France and the UK. |
Re: the Union Forever?
I suspect the Union will be a less important issue in the long term, given further EU integration (which seems likely) and likely demographic changes over the next fifty or so years.
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
In 1998 the Irish people washed their hands of the problem and voted overwhelmingly (c. 95%) that they wanted nothing more to do with it. I suppose a lot of that is greed. We are currently a very wealthy nation by anyone's standards but despite this we simply cannot afford the level of investment that is required to run the place. I believe the figure is about £40 billion per annum. So you guys can keep it. Or give it to Scotland and they can be "independent" together. It won't matter when we all join the Federated States of Europe in 20 years time anyway. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...991978,00.html |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However im treading carefully, because i see myself as an internationalist rather than a nationalist. But each country's political culture is different and for me at any rate is a significant part of what it means to be part of a nation. I very much doubt i would feel as strongly Scottish rather than British, for example, if there was a left-wing government i could identify with in london, and a tory government in holyrood. Quote:
To clarify my position, i would be in favour of a Scotland outwith the Union of Great Britain, integrated fuller, and deeper, in the European union - with the English and the Welsh. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Also stating my preference for smaller nation states as a norm, especially those with benign national interests such as Scotland.
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Since this is about fairly arbitary tub-thumping, its worth pointing out a fairly important reason for the union was william paterson practically bankrupting you whilst trying to set up a colony, your interests were only benign within britain, not before. And what do you mean by small? |
Re: the Union Forever?
Im not dignifying either (ASG) troll with a proper response.
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Im also not getting into a ridiculous argument about semantics about the word 'small'. Obviously, as you well realise, im hinting about the lack of accountability in politics and democracy, and making a reasonable claim that smaller bureaucracy results in less corruption and better representation |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
For instance, I can think of numerous issues which (for myself) are dealt with best by a London-wide authority. I don't want to have to buy different travelcards because I'm crossing over the Lambeth-Southwark border in the morning. But then housing and planning issues might have more of a local input. There's no reason I can think of off-hand why street-lighting would need input from London's townhall, for instance. There is obviously some sort of Scottish cultural identity, but administratively would the Highlanders be best served by a Glasgow/Edinburgh dominated authority? What would a Scottish statelet actually do? |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
It holds a relevance if you want scotland 'absolved' or 'condemned' by what happened in the last 300 years, if scotland's empire building had suceeded its history would be as tainted as that of britain. The scots, and the english formed an empire and did all those things of which you are not proud through britain. Since they all actively took part in what occured it seems fairly pointless to hold up an 'ideal' of those nations and say somehow the nations weren't to blame. To put it another way, if scotland leaves the union and becomes 'fully integated' in the EU (whatever that means) and in doing so influences the EU to 'commit wrongs' it would be fairly nonsensical for scottish nationalists to then turn around and say it wasn't scotlands fault. Be independant if you wish, but the history of britain is scotlands history, with scotlands participation. I don't turn away from that history but rather accept it and learn from it, trying to absolve scotland by distancing it from what it helped do is shallow patriotism. Quote:
Defining what you mean by small is quite important mang, if open border policies of an integrated scotland in the EU allowed, say 30 million immigrants into scotland the 'relative distance' from your political system (however you're measuring that) would be increased. You aren't implementing any new ideas for making politics more accountable. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Smaller nation states aren't necessarily benign. Smaller nation states are also easier to coerce. |
Re: the Union Forever?
This is basically the complicated nature of the dual and not neccesarily mutually compatible ideas of devolving and decentralising power, and pooling sovereignity where its mutually beneficial.
Of course you are right, bringing up the Highlands / Glasgow&Eburg thing. If you talk to phang, you'll find quite a lot of his time is spent lamenting the 'west coast media' in Scotland. As far as im concerned, local issues can be best dealt with at a local level. Im not sure theres actually anything i disagree with you on here. Im probably missing something, but feel free to probe away. My issue is partly that i feel more comfortable with power being devolved to Brussels, than to London. I dont agree with british power projection, or with the bandwagoning behind America. For Scotland - a country with no real international disputes, and no need for military projection or to sustain a military presence anywhere - a situation where sovereignty is pooled in a multipolar institution is much preferrable than one where its invested in an ex imperial power, with all the things that come with that. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
I wont be accused of shallow patriotism when what you are basically advocating is 'take the good with the bad and like it or lump it'. Looking forward rather than back, what international benefits does Scotland get from being associated with Britain? When did i say open border politics? And what bizarre world are you living in where Scotland would seek to increase its population by 600%? Quote:
I didnt say they all were benign, but short of a full scale war with Norway happening over fishery disputes, i hardly see Scotland as a Serbia. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Quote:
* = Obviously I'm talking about a government with a constitutional framework of some description. |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Im not sure if i agree with that. Blair came out this week and said that it would be a 'disaster' if Britain ever withdrew its worldwide military presence. Were Scotland to be independant, i dont think sustaining troops in the Middle East would be high up the Scottish agenda
|
Re: the Union Forever?
I think you have to recognise here that English interests aren't exactly being perfectly represented in the UK parliament. The fact that the people don't want something doesn't prevent the government from doing it anyways. Tony Blair had a moderately well-known speech in which he acknowledged this and claimed it was a good thing I believe.
|
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
|
Re: the Union Forever?
The only reason Scottish independence has had so much press recently is because its a world cup year. Expect talk about it to disappear over the next year or so, and come back again in the months around the next European championship. Its almost entirely a football issue, and gets raised periodically at 4 year intervals, lasts a couple of months, and gets forgetten again.
The reasons most people give for supporting independence are so hilariously petty that its extremely hard to take them seriously. The ideal solution would be for Edinburgh to join England (since they would end up financailly supporting the rest of Scotland if they were to be stuck with them), and for the rest of Scotland to go away and form a third-world country somewhere. |
Re: the Union Forever?
QUOTE=JonnyBGood]Indeed but then we're back to questions over how states should be decided upon. Banging on about self-determination is missing the point. States which don't fear their citizens are probably more likely to undertake policies damaging to them. As V says people shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people.[/quote]I'm not sure how bigger governments are weaker though, or how the citizens of a (theoretically) more representative state are less likely to rebel/oppose government tyranny. Unless you mean a more diverse state is more likely to avoid despotic governments in the first place (which could be true).
Self-determination can't necessarily be elevated to the position of general rule, but it does serve well as a guiding principle. The issue with Scotland (and Northern Ireland, to an extent) is that the population does not seem to actually want to be independent. With Northern Ireland there's obviously issues around the gerrymandering of the borders, but then it's not clear if the south wants unification either for reasons Achilles mentioned. OK, Libertarianism 101 : Power is located wherever possible at the individual. Where there are some sort of shared interest which is managed collectively then surely we would want to organise this collective management in a manner which most people can agree with. If East Springfield feel they can organise rubbish collection better then the Springfield Municipality, why would we oppose that? Sure, there are interests where a privileged minority might want to leave a wider state to escape the burden of it's poorer neighbours, but that's more of an issue of solidarity, and right-libertarians don't care about that sort of thing anyway (presumably). |
Re: the Union Forever?
Quote:
Quote:
You're not advocating any new political systems that will stop whatever it is you have an issue with, the influence of the multinational corporations, of american foreign policy, of EU foreign policy will be just as strong. I honetly don't know what you're trying to say now :( the juxtaposing of history and nationalism aside, the rest of the people of britain don't want the war in iraq and don't particularly like tony blair. The failures aren't geographic or because of nationalism but rather institutional, you don't think an elected scottish president would support a war in iraq. Why?! Quote:
Quote:
I was trying to point out saying 'small' is ambigious and fairly meaningless term, would a scotland within the same borders but with a bigger population still be 'small'? |
Re: the Union Forever?
Just think of all the scottish MP's we could get rid of:
Gordon Brown John Reid Douglas Alexander Des Brown Alistair Darling Lord Falconer Plus Tony Blair and George Galloway! (despite them representing English constituencies...) (also there's Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell... but who would notice?) |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:44. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018