Holy fuck you guys, really? Really?
Steophan does tend to fire from the hip.
The article calling for a statesman like Lincoln that I posted earlier is worth a read. But Steophan does feel the need to try to win an argument rather than to make an argument, even when it takes him beyond his competence.
It’s not about who’s right and wrong. It’s about who is arguing about Lincoln in a thread about UK politics.
(Hint: it’s you.)
I posted a fascinating article about how Lincoln tried to keep the Confederacy from war.
Steophan erroneously claims that Lincoln was a war monger despite the received view that he was extremely reluctant to move for war.
I point out this error.
Max Hastings demonstrates those Unionist attitudes that are likely to drive the Scots to seek independence
He wasn’t reluctant enough to allow secession without war - and yet, you for some, inexplicable, reason link to him as an ideal statesman for allowing a peaceful secession :smack::smack::smack:
Scottish sovereignty is in the hands of the UK, who may - but are not obliged to - hand that decision to the people of Scotland. Scotland, of course, has a right to declare independence unilaterally, but no-one, least of all the UK, is obliged to pay any attention to that declaration.
In the real world, no-one is going to refuse Scotland independence *as long as *it’s done on terms acceptable to the UK. But the idea that Scotland can just decide to leave, taking whatever assets and leaving whatever commitments behind, without any consequence, is utterly wrong.
Anyway, I’ll ask again, since you seem to have ignored my actual question. Given your admiration for Lincoln, would you accept that, if Scotland gains independence, the UK would be justified in using force to hold its military assets north of the border? As that’s what Lincoln did, to begin the Civil War.
He’s 100% correct. If the Scots are so desperate to shoot themselves in the foot rather than accept that they’re better off as a region of the UK than an independent nation, that is ultimately up to them.
Like most people, I’d rather it didn’t happen, but if the price of keeping Scotland in the Union is handing control of the Government to a party that less than 5% of the population voted for, I’d not accept paying it.
You don’t do logic do you?
But you do manage to demonstrate most common errors in debate though.
I quite admire Jefferson; that does not mean I approve of his slave holding.
I quite admire Lincoln as a man of peace; even though his hand was forced, a little bit like that great war monger who said jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war.
It is quite possible for people who have your approval to be excused certain actions when their lives are viewed as a whole. (Dresden)
It is also possible for moral people to be forced into immoral acts.
When you start trying to engage in real debate rather than just trying to win any argument for the sake of it you will be worthy of respect.
So, you accept that a section of your country declaring independence is grounds for war then? Because that’s what Lincoln believed, and how he acted. Were he in charge of the UK, he would not countenance Scottish independence.
Why hold him up as an example in this situation? His aims were diametrically opposed to yours - he wished to keep the union whole, and enforce the wishes of the larger part thereof on the remainder - precisely the opposite of what you want for Scotland and the UK.
And you just don’t bother to read responses. That is well covered in my previous post.
Are you just arguing for the sake of it?
No it isn’t, not at all. If it were I wouldn’t keep asking questions.
Not exactly, I’d like to be exposed to other points of view to mine and be able to analyse them. That seems like a decent reason for debating. But I certainly don’t expect anything of world-shattering importance to come of it.
It’s a shame that, despite my questions, you are unwilling or unable to clearly state your reasons for wanting a politician like Lincoln to take charge of negotiations here, despite his position being the opposite of yours.
To clarify my argument.
I believe that the major drive towards Scottish Independence may be the actions of people who call themselves Unionists.
Their actions and attitudes are quite off putting to many Scottish people who are neutral or moderate in their Unionism.
In the most recent referendum the Independence vote was only tens of thousands short of a majority.
The more people who are offended by such aggressive unionism, the more will move into the YES camp.
Probably the majority view in Scotland is some form of Devo Max or Home Rule. Certainly a massive majority of people want most issues decided at a local level. Few want the status quo.
I would prefer Home Rule to Independence- I have only been a reluctant supporter of a YES vote because no middle option was offered.
I feel that the main current threat to the Union is paradoxically extreme (usually English) Unionists such as Max Hastings, John Major and Steophan whose arguments are those most likely to push Scots into separation.
What is needed is statesmanship and negotiation to meet the various demands across the whole UK for devolution and federalisation.
The coming election campaign and its resulting House of Commons will be the battle ground on which this will be fought.
Asked and answered.
It’s you who brought up “aggressive Unionism” by talking about Lincoln, no-one else has suggested any form of aggression. There’s nothing in anything written by Hastings, Major, or myself for that matter, that suggests Scotland should be forced to remain in the Union against its will, simply that it’s foolish beyond measure for it to consider leaving, and unacceptable to hold the government hostage to those demands.
And writing such in a rather demeaning manner is what will drive the Scots out.
The future of the Union is in the hands of the Unionists.
Compromise or Separate, that is the choice.
Remember how well the Better Together scare tactics worked in the referendum? Well, anti-Scottish sentiment is the successor of that.
I’m well aware of that, but I can’t see why that should be an issue for the rest of the EU, as you implied it might. Each member state’s rules for granting its citizenship - and EU citizenship with it - are its own business, and not within EU competence; nor could any EU institution or other member state claim that it would make any great difference to them - unless large numbers of Scots decided to take advantage of freedom of movement to settle somewhere where enough locals - improbably - would decide to adopt a UKIP-style attitude towards them.
Indeed, but the issue would be the terms, on which other EU member states’ attitudes cannot be taken for granted. Any member government that finds its vote is important can very easily find its own list of things it would like considered by the others.
Considering withdrawing from the Union to be foolish, and not wanting the SNP to dictate terms, is demeaning? 
Is there any way one can object to Scotland going independent without being accused of being demeaning or colonial?
I have no idea where you get the idea that the Unionists aren’t compromising. There’s continuing dialogue, and further devolution.
You don’t want compromise, though, and neither does the SNP. They want all their demands met under threat of disruption and, if they don’t get their way, flouncing out. Just like Greece is doing in the EU at the moment.
That attitude won’t benefit either of them in the long run. You know the main point about compromise? It goes both ways. The compromise was the referendum, that you and the SNP seem so keen to forget. Despite pledging to abide by the results.
If the SNP refuse to compromise, then the UK should not bend over backwards to accommodate them, they should ignore them, treating them as the extremists they appear to be. If, as I hope but really don’t expect, the SNP in Parliament do their job and act for the interests of the whole UK, then a solution that benefits everybody, rather than harms everybody, will be possible.
I really cannot understand how anybody could look at the disproportionate amount of money and political power Scotland has compared to the other regions of the UK, and still claim that there’s been no compromise on the national Government’s part.
There could, and should, come a point where the Government has to say enough is enough and for Scotland to start compromising as well.
But the point is that every current Scot and there progeny in future would be British Passport holders and hence EU citizens. That would be a major anomaly if Scotland were denied full membership of the EU. The Swiss and Norwegians have the rights to work in Europe, but are not European citizens.
It would also mean that all or most of the citizens of a European country would have full rights of European citizens including freedom of movement, free health care, social security etc. Yet their country would be making no contribution of VAT etc.