[British] Unionists putting the [British] Union at risk

Great Debates
1

This article demonstrates how a strong unionist approach is highly likely to result in Independence.

Initially it outlines a devomax approach for all four home countries in a fully federal structure, but then suggests that as the Scots are always going to be awkward, the UK should make a land grab for The Borders and Orkney and Shetland, steal the oil and divide Scotland (It worked so well in Ireland.)

Unionists like this will do more for Scottish independence than Sturgeon and Salmond can ever manage.

2

What’s that? Scotland is not already part of the UK? I had no idea. :rolleyes:

3

It is particularly telling in that he would want to claim The Borders which voted heavily against independence and has oil resources in the North Sea, but not Dumfries and Galloway that was also strongly unionist but has no oil resources. I think his slip is showing!

4

Obviously mad at the Nats fleeing to Washington from the Commonwealth, even if it was the French part. :slight_smile:

They can revive the “rebellious Scots to crush” part of God Save the Queen (King).

5

I read the last part of that as “sturgeon and salmon and sausage”.

Man, I need to get home to dinner.

6

This could be the break Yes Scotland has been waiting for! How much longer til the referendum?

7

That is what will happen unless the English Nationalists find a way to cope with Scottish desire for further devolution.

8

What will happen?

9

A ‘land grab’?

Do you not think Shetlanders and Orcadians should be able to decide for themselves whether to remain part of the UK?

They are no more Scottish than the Manx.

10

Dumfries and Galloway would probably fit under the “Announce that in a future referendum any parts of Scotland that are contiguous to England and vote to stay in the UK will be permitted to do so.” part. But, really, “controversial right wing columnist writes something controversial” isn’t really something worth getting upset about.

11

Yeah, pretty much. It is quite offensive, but it’s such an obvious piece of trolling hackery that I find it difficult to muster any outrage.

12

Well, maybe your problem is that you aren’t out there hunting for reasons to be outraged.

13

An unstoppable movement toward final separation.

My point is that many Unionists are acting and speaking in ways that increase the likelihood of separation.

14

Agreed. But although they voted ‘no’ in the referendum, opinion polls show that their wish was to remain part of Scotland rather than separate should independence be chosen.

15

I am not outraged, merely astounded by the stupidity of punditry that militates against its own aims.

16

So, you’ve never read Bruce Anderson before, then?

17

He normally plays to his main audience but has little effect on people outside his readers.

His naked hatred of Scotland and willingness to think about forcibly dismembering an historical country to meet the needs of the Union mean that this time his remarks may help move Scottish opinion further towards independence.

18

Additional to the above is the current Tory propaganda about some mythical right of the largest party to provide the Prime Minister. The constitution allows the sitting prime minister to have the first chance of forming a government, but if they fail, then any other person may be asked to form a government. There is no requirement on minority parties to support the party with a plurality of seats.

But we have William Hague suggesting that SNP MPs not voting for Cameron is some kind of national betrayal tantamount to treason.

Can you imagine how well suggestion that Scottish MPs should effectively be removed from government making plays north of the border?

19

from history it seems more likely it is your own way of engaging in a rhetorical behavior not very different…

20

Simon Jenkins’ take.

At least he can see the clear parallel with the Irish Problem, but is still dismissive of the Scottish people. It does make interesting reading.