Pjen, is it that much to ask that you stick to one post at a time? I’m detecting more than a hint of feverish mania. And better indication of quotes would help.
Re your most recent wall of paste:
You say you “concur totally”, but the above sounds nothing like the many posts on the subject you’ve graced us with.
Personally, I think much of that article is flawed. The usual dishonest reference to “England’s rulers” and an “English empire” doesn’t help and makes the author’s partisanship clear. The claim that “project fear” (more bias) considers independence “all about cash” is particularly disingenuous when you consider that Salmond has no plan for a currency other than to tie an “independent” Scotland to another country’s currency and crash his own country if he doesn’t get his way. It would be simply ridiculous if both sides weren’t focused on this, considering that we’re less than two weeks away from the referendum and no one has any clue what they’ll be voting for.
Simon Jenkins is a conservative commentator who would be expected to take a unionist view- that is what makes his take worth considering. Of course I expect that Scotland will elect a more leftist government than the rUK, it is a more leftist country. I do not expect a leftist nirvana, but I expect to see the end of punishing the poor, large families, the infirm, and people living in one room too many. There is a range of political hues across Europe and the west; Scotland will be more leftist than rUK for most of the time.
I think you will find that the atmosphere in Scotland currently is that of a real working democracy of the people. There are honest and complex discussions going on in work places, schools, homes and pubs. Over 80% are expected to vote. The TV, Radio and Newspapers are full of discussions about what is happening and there is no sign of election weariness after eighteen months of campaigning. People feel ennervated and involved.
To suggest that these people do not know what they are voting for is the same argument that was applied to India, Ireland,Ghana, Jamaica, Malaya and every other country that has tried to leave the empire. It is a reflex reaction of the colonialist point of view- the natives cannot be trusted to know what is best for them, only Mummy England knows what is best. This attitude riles the Scots, even the NO campaigners and daily increases the YES vote.
Why would anyone care what Scotland protests about when the majority of economic activity and clout is south of the Scottish border?
What are these normal political and diplomatic constraints? A political and diplomatic situation will occur where these protocols do not necessarily apply and will appear to be outdated to the situation, it may require new rules, you hope on supposition that everything will be ‘Ok’
Who are these ‘Independent economists’ Where are your cites?
Scotland was party to conquering those nations, it was not a conquered nation into itself, stop trying to paint the old colonialist brush on this vote for independence, you’re not like the Irish, and you never will be.
The right of People to form their own nation is one thing. The UK has decided to ask the electorate of Scotland if it wants to be a separate state. The reply may well be YES. If so it will be difficult to oppose separation at some point, even if some sticking points remain about the terms of settlement. Only an authoritarian state would ignore the democratic will of a part of its population for independence after offering it the choice.
Just suppose for a moment that Scotland declared UDI and then was recognised by the Commonwealth as a member (which it is allowed, and the decision would essentially be made by a group of ex colonies with long memories) and became a member of the EEA as it is entitled to (no application process, just an agreement to keep by their rules.) Suppose it made an application to join the UN.
The rUK has limited abilities to stop any of this happening.
Read your history. Scotland was forced by economic circumstances of the seventeenth and eighteenth to join its Parliament with England’s- a move which was welcomed by the gentry but resisted by the masses. It certainly was part of Empire building as were many Irish, Anglo-Irish, Scots-Irish or Nationalist, but has still suffered from colonialist attitudes that are being displayed here.
The belief of many Scots is that they suffer from a neo-colonialist attitude and that is a real part of Scottish politics and of this current campaign.
Read the words of the Scottish anthem (Flower of Scotland I prefer Highland Cathedral) sung with gusto at every opportunity, and the anthem of many a gathering “Cap in Hand” by the Proclaimers. The longer I live here the better I understand their feelings without necessarily sharing them.
These psychological factors are behind the hardening of the YES vote where Scottish allegiance is replacing tribal Labour politics in the central belt.
Scotland is not part of any empire, it is an equal part of a union. A union that is not headed by England, but by a government elected by the people of four (or five, if you count Cornwall) countries - of which, Scotland has the greatest level of representation, having representation in two parliaments, not one like all the other constituents.
Yes, I want what is best for England. I also want what’s best for the Union, and for Scotland, which is to remain as a union. However, I do not want Scotland to be allowed to harm the union any more than necessary if it leaves, and will vote accordingly. I think you’ll find that many Britons will do the same if independence does occur, and will no longer be considering Scotland’s interests.
Oh, and if as you claim the turnout will be 80%, there will need to be a 62.5% vote for independence for there to be a mandate, otherwise you will be attempting to force a change of nationality on a people who don’t want it - something you have repeatedly claimed is illegal. So, there will be absolutely no mandate for unilateral independence, not that many countries would recognise it if you tried it without a stronger mandate than that.
Suchh an Anglo-centric attitude. It is not shared by a majority of Scots who believe that Scotland has always been the minor and smaller part of a Union; hence the apparent majority forming for separation.
Whatever the turnout, all that will be required is 50% of the vote plus one vote. There is no requirement to get a majority, merely a plurality. You are probably too young to remember that such a restriction was placed on the 1979 referendum and that still rankles up here. Then a majority of Scots voted for devolution, but it did not reach the 40% of the electorate required by the Act that set up the referendum; that led to another 20 years of Union. That will not happen this time- so a simple plurality will suffice. Neither politicians nor the Better Together campaign believe that your 62.5% is necessary- unless you have a cite?
In the seventeenth and eighteenth century mass suffrage wasn’t the norm, so please do not apply 21st century moral relativism to a Union of 300 years. Oh yes, it’s suffering, free tuition fees, better standards of living, better quality of life, some neo-colonialist attitude there.
Ireland’s history of being in the UK is a much better example of colonial rule than Scotland ever will be due to it being constantly denied proper representation, religious discrimination, had suffered the destruction of its national identity, mass emigration and deprivation and lack of investment, I respect their claims of persecution by the English more due to them actually being legitimate.
So minor that you get to impose laws on England, but not vice versa :smack:
A “yes” vote will simply begin the process of negotiation on independence.
I was alive but very young then, but I know about it.
In which case, the majority did not vote for it, less than 40% of Scots did.
No, a majority of 50%+1 will start negotiations on independence, my point is that without, at the very minimum, a clear majority of Scots voting yes (such as 62.5%+1 on an 80% turnout) there will be no mandate for unilateral independence, something you seem to take for granted will happen if negotiations fail.
Do you actually realise that a yes vote won’t automatically lead to independence, it will start negotiations that could lead to independence? It is my belief that, even if they vote yes, when the negotiations happen and the economic and political realities of independence become clear, the appetite for true independence will diminish massively.
But if you really want to cut off your nose to spite your face go for it. But you’re not cutting mine off too.
Steophan in not wanting your government to act against your own interests in any negotiations, and waste the golden negotiating position handed to them by the Scots who appear to have no negotiating position to speak of at all, you’re clearly an Anglocentric neo-colonialist whose arguments can be ignored.
More general neo-colonialism- Scots cannot be trusted to decide their own future, England knows better, England will not ‘allow’ independence. Strange I have seen none of these arguments, not even from the most unionist camps. Unless you have a cite for any reputable person who has suggested that Independence will not automatically follow a YES vote.
Any further suggestion that this is the case needs to be backed up by a cite from a powerful and reliable source.
I still don’t get why being Anglocentric is such a bad thing, but being Scotiocentric is so praiseworthy… But if the Scots do decide to selfishly act in such a way as to harm both themselves and the rest of the UK, damn right I want to minimise the harm to me.
And I’m hardly a colonialist, I’m drinking Fair Trade tea at the moment.
“England” won’t be doing anything , the UK will. Independence won’t happen until there’s a negotiated agreement - all sides, and indeed everyone I’ve heard talk about the issue except you, accept that.
As long as Scotland negotiates in good faith, such an agreement will be readily forthcoming. If they attempt to take what’s not theirs and refuse to pay what they owe, not so much. But it’s mostly you saying that you’ll take over Faslane, keep all the oil money, pay none of the debt, and keep using Sterling, regardless of what the UK wants. That combination will not happen. A sensible agreement, probably one that lets the UK keep Faslane in exchange for its share of the oil revenue, a fair division of debt, and Scotland using its own pound, not Sterling, with the rUK working with Scotland on economic issues to the benefit of both countries, would work fine.
It still wouldn’t work as well as Union, but sadly nationalism seems to be trumping common sense here.
But that is what will happen, you can’t expect two nations who have lived in Union for centuries, once the split has happened, to magically have an immediate amicable relationship with one another.
Again, your view of people such as myself due to my ethnicity as being the harbingers of neo colonialism and of an imperial sentiment over the Scots is indicative of the kind of future relationship we’ll have with the Scottish people and people who are ashamed of their own nationality who live in Scotland.
Now lest start from scratch. There is no oil money to keep. The areas of the coastal waters that are English and Scottish is well defined by International Law and what is rightfully Scotland’s is not a matter for negotiation but a matter of law.
If Scotland cannot get its independence by agreement it will have the power to exercise a sovereign right under international law; UDI will follow and will be impossible to resist in a modern democratic state. If UDI is declared, Scotland will have an absolute right to close Faslane and other military bases, especially if the UK opposes membership of NATO. Opposing membership of the EU is meaningless as Scotland would be as well off in the EEA as being a full EU member. The outstanding debt will be bargained against retaining the pound in some way- the two go naturally together as the pound is a shared asset as the National debt is a shared debt.
All will be settled by rational discussion between equals under international law in order to stabilise sterling.
