Is Scottish independence a &#x27;good or bad&#x27; thing?

Original post by KevK92

Does that mean that every citizen across the world that believes in self-determination is a Nationalist?

So any constituency which doesn't vote for the party which forms the government should become independent states?

Reply 8061

Original post by KevK92

Lets get away from this "Nationalist" tag. Not everyone in the Yes movement is a nationalist. Does that mean that every citizen across the world that believes in self-determination is a Nationalist? Of course not.

We've discussed on this thread before that self-determination has nothing to do with nationalism. Equally, the Scottish independence movement doesn't mean we somehow start self-determining: the British people already self-determine - all of us - within our state.

I've yet to meet a 'yes' supporter that doesn't fall back on nationalist arguments. Indeed, it is presupposed by the 'yes' campaign. Look at their Declaration, for example--

I believe it is fundamentally better for us all, if decisions about Scotland's future are taken by the people who care most about Scotland, that is, by the people of Scotland.

Being independent means Scotland's future will be in Scotland's hands.

Now, each of these sentences makes perfect sense if you insert any geographical area in place of "Scotland". "Britain", "Shetland", "Kirkcudbrightshire", "Dollar" - whatever you like. The reason 'yes' supporters think this makes any sense as a political argument is because they are nationalists: they believe that Scotland is somehow a special unit which demands certain political rights.

It's actually the normal, "done thing"... Other countries take it for granted.

No they don't. The vast majority of countries resist nationalistic secession movements within their borders. In almost every country of any size, there is some sort of nationalist group within trying to destroy things.

Most countries around the world are outward-looking - they look for new and effective ways to co-operate and work together with their neighbours and others. That is the polar opposite of secession, division and erecting borders.

What about people who vote for the UK to leave the EU, would you label them as British Nationalists? I think not. So spare me the nationalist drivel.

I would, have and do. So spare me your sanctimony.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8062

Original post by L i b

No they don't. The vast majority of countries resist nationalistic secession movements within their borders. In almost every country of any size, there is some sort of nationalist group within trying to destroy things.

Most countries around the world are outward-looking - they look for new and effective ways to co-operate and work together with their neighbours and others. That is the polar opposite of secession, division and erecting borders.

They're trying to destroy things, in your opinion, of course.

Iceland, one of the worst affected by the global financial crisis put democracy before pressure from their "neighbours" as you call it. Resulting in Iceland recovering more quickly than any other country across the world.

[video="youtube;qieVZb4Ml9I"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qieVZb4Ml9I[/video]

I have absolutely no interest in separating, in fact for me, it's about taking our place in the world as an equal. I'm afraid, anyone who says that the union is an equal partnership is misinformed.

Original post by Snagprophet

So any constituency which doesn't vote for the party which forms the government should become independent states?

Outrageous statement. Whether you like it or not Scotland is a nation that has a constitutional right to hold a referendum if it wishes to do so. Hence, why we're in this debate. An absolute absurd statement, Scotland is not a "Constituency" of the UK, I know it's hard for some people to grasp that.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8063

Original post by KevK92

Outrageous statement. Whether you like it or not Scotland is a nation that has a constitutional right to hold a referendum if it wishes to do so.

Erm, no actually. It needed permission from the UK, which includes it's own MPs.

Edit: Even after the referendum it would need to seek permission from the UK again. If the UK doesn't approve, then it would have to prove that it's unconstitutional to 'force' Scotland to stay in in a country which has no constitution.

Original post by KevK92

Hence, why we're in this debate. An absolute absurd statement, Scotland is not a "Constituency" of the UK, I know it's hard for some people to grasp that.

It's the same principles though. An area of a country, or at least a minority of that area, wanting to split away on the basis of 'I didn't vote the Tories. Why are they in government?' bull****.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8064

Original post by Snagprophet

Erm, no actually. It needed permission from the UK, which includes it's own MPs.

Edit: Even after the referendum it would need to seek permission from the UK again. If the UK doesn't approve, then it would have to prove that it's unconstitutional to 'force' Scotland to stay in in a country which has no constitution.

It's the same principles though. An area of a country, or at least a minority of that area, wanting to split away on the basis of 'I didn't vote the Tories. Why are they in government?' bull****.

So there we have it, you've just completely blown the "Partnership" argument out of water. This idea that both parliaments work together is a complete myth.

I have no qualms, that if infact there is a Yes vote that independence is what the Scottish people will get. It would be craziness for either side not to adhere to the Edinburgh Agreement.

Reply 8065

Original post by KevK92

They're trying to destroy things, in your opinion, of course.

Well, yes, I think that goes without saying.

I have absolutely no interest in separating, in fact for me, it's about taking our place in the world as an equal. I'm afraid, anyone who says that the union is an equal partnership is misinformed.

I'm not sure what Iceland has to do with anything here.

You're twisting words there. Scotland is an equal part of the United Kingdom - it is not, however, equal to any other part you choose to name. These are two separate meanings.

The only 'partnership' here is between individual British citizens who are equal to one-another before the law and in their democratic involvement in the institutions of government. If you are trying to suggest that 5 millions people in Scotland are equal to 50 million in England, then I'd say that's anti-democratic, illiberal and repugnant to my values.

If your view of 'taking our place in the world' involves actively co-operating less with the outside world, it is not a vision I - or any outward-looking person - shares.

Outrageous statement. Whether you like it or not Scotland is a nation

To paraphrase your statement above: in your opinion.

I, for one, don't really care whether you call Scotland a nation or not: I think it is a very simplistic way of looking at a complex sociological question. What I care about is when you start demanding legal and political privileges as a result of it. That is inherently demanding double-standards, special treatment and - by virtue of that - discrimination against others.

that has a constitutional right to hold a referendum if it wishes to do so. Hence, why we're in this debate. An absolute absurd statement, Scotland is not a "Constituency" of the UK, I know it's hard for some people to grasp that.

In the proper meaning of a 'constituency' simply as a constituting part of something, it obviously is. It is not a parliamentary constituency - but, again, no-one suggested it was.

There is no constitutional right in the UK for Scotland to hold a secession referendum. The reason it is happening now is because the UK Government essentially permitted one referendum to be held before the end of 2014.

That's a special privilege, not a right - and a privilege to which, if pushed, I'd have to say I disagree with. Still, the UK Government clearly thought it had something to gain politically from doing that - and while I may disagree with the principle, they are ultimately the elected government and the power belongs to them.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8066

Original post by KevK92

So there we have it, you've just completely blown the "Partnership" argument out of water. This idea that both parliaments work together is a complete myth.

Both parliaments do work together on a lot of things, just as both governments do. They help one-another on common policy objectives. You can call that a "partnership" if you like - but the Scottish Parliament is not Scotland, and the UK Parliament isn't England.

But again, if you think 5m Scots are equal to 50m Englishmen, you're quite wrong.

I have no qualms, that if infact there is a Yes vote that independence is what the Scottish people will get. It would be craziness for either side not to adhere to the Edinburgh Agreement.

Fair enough point, but once again no-one has said anything to the contrary.

Reply 8067

MatureStudent36

Original post by ChickenMadness

They obviously hate our government. And tbh Wales and Scotland are governed much better than England. Really we just got a bunch of school kids in power that undermine each other's policies then blame the mistakes on each other lol.

Wales?

You may want to read up on the monumental cluster that is the welsh assembly.

Reply 8068

Psyk

16

Original post by KevK92

Lets get away from this "Nationalist" tag. Not everyone in the Yes movement is a nationalist. Does that mean that every citizen across the world that believes in self-determination is a Nationalist? Of course not. It's actually the normal, "done thing"... Other countries take it for granted. What about people who vote for the UK to leave the EU, would you label them as British Nationalists? I think not. So spare me the nationalist drivel.

I have confidence in a Yes vote on the 18th September, it's the progressive choice. Of course there are uncertainties, but life is uncertain.

The Scottish independence movement is fundamentally a nationalist one. There may be some supporters who are not nationalists, but they are opportunists who see it as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. For example if they're against nuclear weapons, Scottish independence is a means to get rid of some of them. But if they were truly not nationalists at all, they would much rather the UK would get rid of them entirely.

Reply 8069

Original post by Psyk

The Scottish independence movement is fundamentally a nationalist one. There may be some supporters who are not nationalists, but they are opportunists who see it as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. For example if they're against nuclear weapons, Scottish independence is a means to get rid of some of them. But if they were truly not nationalists at all, they would much rather the UK would get rid of them entirely.

There's more than "some". I'd say the number of opportunists now outnumber the nationalists on the YES side.

The difference is there though, all Westminster parties support the use of trident. Whereas most, if not all, of Scotland's political parties would have the eradication of nuclear weapons in their manifesto.

Reply 8070

Psyk

16

Original post by KevK92

There's more than "some". I'd say the number of opportunists now outnumber the nationalists on the YES side.

The difference is there though, all Westminster parties support the use of trident. Whereas most, if not all, of Scotland's political parties would have the eradication of nuclear weapons in their manifesto.

That's what I mean. Since there's little chance of it happening on a UK wide basis, they can get a bit closer to their goal by piggybacking on Scottish independence, even though they don't really care about that. Although in this particular case it could be counter-productive towards their end goal because if Scotland becomes independent, they're no longer going to have any say about the UK's nuclear arsenal.

Although I suspect some of them don't really care about the existence of nuclear weapons as long as they're "Not In My Back Yard". And since they consider Scotland their "back yard", they're actually nationalists in a sense. Plus there are probably some who supported Scottish independence in the first place, and have now adopted an anti-nuclear stance to justify it.

Reply 8071

Original post by KevK92

So there we have it, you've just completely blown the "Partnership" argument out of water. This idea that both parliaments work together is a complete myth.

I don't think anyone but Salmond and the YeSNP have ever referred to the United Kingdom as a 'Partnership'.

The only difference between the former kingdoms of Scotland and England forming to become a new country and the former kingdoms of Fife and Strathclyde coming together to form Scotland, with the addition of various other kingdoms which also play no constitutional role in the modern day, is that Scotland and England have maintained separate legal system.

So if it is a partnership, who is the representatives for Scotland's partnership? Holyrood? That only came in recently in the whole scheme of things. Partnership would suggest Scotland would have a dedicated leader or governance.

I don't see any 'partnership' which is easily distinctive any more than former kingdoms of England or Scotland being considered partners. Maybe a partnership of UK constituencies but I don't see how that would separate a constituency in England and a constituency in Scotland.

Besides, local councils are already the most democratic devolved areas of government we'll ever achieve short of giving them taxation powers.

Original post by KevK92

It would be craziness for either side not to adhere to the Edinburgh Agreement.

Here is the Edinburgh Agreement copied and pasted from the Scottish government website

*have a clear legal base
*be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament
*be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people
*deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect

*the date of the referendum
*the franchise
*the wording of the question
*rules on campaign financing
*other rules for the conduct of the referendum

The Edinburgh Agreement is being adhered to. As it clearly states, the Edinburgh agreement consists only as a right for a referendum to take place and for it to be legislated for by the Scottish parliament.

I don't particularly see how it's possible for the UK government to not adhere to the agreement short of ordering poll stations not to open on referendum day. The UK is under no obligation to allow Scottish independence based on this referendum. The UK is not just England telling a 'foreign' country what to do, it is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8072

Original post by KevK92

The difference is there though, all Westminster parties support the use of trident. Whereas most, if not all, of Scotland's political parties would have the eradication of nuclear weapons in their manifesto.

All of Scotland's major political parties stand in Westminster elections. Every single one of those major parties are committed to ending the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons through a process of multilateral disarmament.

Reply 8073

Original post by Snagprophet

I don't think anyone but Salmond and the YeSNP have ever referred to the United Kingdom as a 'Partnership'.

The only difference between the former kingdoms of Scotland and England forming to become a new country and the former kingdoms of Fife and Strathclyde coming together to form Scotland, with the addition of various other kingdoms which also play no constitutional role in the modern day, is that Scotland and England have maintained separate legal system.

So if it is a partnership, who is the representatives for Scotland's partnership? Holyrood? That only came in recently in the whole scheme of things. Partnership would suggest Scotland would have a dedicated leader or governance.

I don't see any 'partnership' which is easily distinctive any more than former kingdoms of England or Scotland being considered partners. Maybe a partnership of UK constituencies but I don't see how that would separate a constituency in England and a constituency in Scotland.

Besides, local councils are already the most democratic devolved areas of government we'll ever achieve short of giving them taxation powers.

Have you been paying attention to this debate at all? Johann Lamont, the Scottish Labour leader, has repeatedly said that both Parliaments/Govs work in partnership & "Pull and share each other's resources"... along with the fact that she said we're safer underneath the "Broad shoulders of The United Kingdom".

I don't really know how safe it is to be under an economy that is heading for 1.55 trillion of debt by 2017.

Now that's only one politician, I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

As for local councils being democratic? What's your next joke? They're getting powers taken away from them as we speak, under this government.

Reply 8074

Psyk

16

Original post by KevK92

As for local councils being democratic? What's your next joke? They're getting powers taken away from them as we speak, under this government.

If you're talking about Scotland, that's the SNPs doing. Local government is a devolved matter.

Reply 8075

Original post by KevK92

Have you been paying attention to this debate at all? Johann Lamont, the Scottish Labour leader, has repeatedly said that both Parliaments/Govs work in partnership & "Pull and share each other's resources"... along with the fact that she said we're safer underneath the "Broad shoulders of The United Kingdom".

You know what? I'm glad you posted this because this clearly settles the issue with what a partnership is and what sharing resources is.

I'm guessing the electricity provided with the street my student house dwells and the electricity provided back home shows a clear distinction of partnership between the two roads.

I'm guessing the local power-station is in a partnership with the local Co-op right? Sharing resources? Power to the shop? Food for any random worker who happens to walk in?

Original post by KevK92

I don't really know how safe it is to be under an economy that is heading for 1.55 trillion of debt by 2017.

That's not really how debt works.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 8076

Original post by Psyk

If you're talking about Scotland, that's the SNPs doing. Local government is a devolved matter.

I'm talking UK wide. I'm not a SNP supporter by any means, however.. many people in Scotland have still to get the mentality of "Voting Yes, means a vote for SNP & Salmond" It is nothing like that. That would mean Voting No is a vote for Cameron and the Tories.

Local Councils are having powers withdrawn from them all across the United Kingdom, A reformed Scottish Labour Party would rediscover it's values in my opinion and deliver the fairer society that the people of Scotland want.

Reply 8077