Should Scotland be Independent?

[Yerda]

Kilts, the anthem, ancestry, Jacobites, the Declaration of Arbroath (where Salmond was yesterday talking about it!)...all of these romantic notions override a serious discussion of currency, jobs, position on the world stage and other matters of the 'head' that are of true importance to most people.

I've read hundreds of hours of material and none of it has made any mention of kilts, ancestry, Jacobites, the Declaration of Arbroath....The arguments are overwhelmingly about currency, jobs, social justice, economic justice, electoral justice, and leaving behind a state still hungover from Empire.

Have you spent any time researching or even thinking about the matter?

The SNP often frame the referendum as wider than their own party's agenda. Funnily enough, none of the other main parties support independence.

The leadership of the three main UK parties don't support the break up of the union. This is hardly unexpected. Neither does it affect my point.

As part of a much more insular, nationalist Scotland that looks inward rather than outward?

What are you talking about?

 

[Vouthon]

I've read hundreds of hours of material and none of it has made any mention of kilts, ancestry, Jacobites, the Declaration of Arbroath....The arguments are overwhelmingly about currency, jobs, social justice, economic justice, electoral justice, and leaving behind a state still hungover from Empire.

I never suggested that official publications, such as the White Paper, were inundated with romanticisms. I expressed my personal experience that this is nonetheless a prominent motivation among a substantial cross-section of some SNP voters, at least many ones I have had contact with. And yesterday Alex Salmond was on Sky News live from Arbroath speaking about the Declaration of Arbroath and its significance for the referendum. Yesterday was one month from the referendum. Why? What does Arbroath have to do with the concerns of Scottish voters?

Also, I personally feel that the First Minister has given extremely vague answers concerning Scotland's future. He claims that the no campaign is guided by 'project fear,' yet he has made numerous promises that have since had doubt cast upon them. I do not see a clear and coherent vision presented for an independent Scotland.

Also may I ask, what is 'leaving behind a state still hungover from Empire'? I do not think that Britain is overly jingoistic today or nostalgic for imperial days.

Have you spent any time researching or even thinking about the matter?

Of course I have. Upon this decision next month depends the future of my country for every generation that will follow.

The leadership of the three main UK parties don't support the break up of the union. This is hardly unexpected. Neither does it affect my point.

Neither does your reply affect my point, which was that the SNP have always had an independent Scotland as one of their keys aims since their foundation in 1934 and that it has been pushed through primarily by them. Therefore independence will be seen squarely as an 'SNP' victory, not something that non-SNP Scots can embrace as a national project. Independence is seen in popular discourse as practically synonymous with Scottish Nationalism therefore.

What are you talking about?

I am talking about Scottish Nationalism and my distaste for nationalism more generally in politics.

 

[Vouthon]

If we vote yes, then yes. If we vote no, then no.

On that we are fully agreed. A plebiscite is the correct and fair way to democratically decide the future of a country and of a people. There is a genuine choice over here in Scotland and two campaigns that have had equal showcasing of their respective positions. In that respect we are lucky, since other nations have ended up in armed conflict over such issues while we are having a generally civil political debate (minus the Cyber Nats).

 

[Yerda]

On that we are fully agreed. A plebiscite is the correct and fair way to democratically decide the future of a country and of a people. There is a genuine choice over here in Scotland and two campaigns that have had equal showcasing of their respective positions. In that respect we are lucky, since other nations have ended up in armed conflict over such issues while we are having a generally civil political debate (minus the Cyber Nats).

Well said.

 

[samosasauce]

If they want to be

 

[Yerda]

I never suggested that official publications, such as the White Paper, were inundated with romanticisms. I expressed my personal experience that this is nonetheless a prominent motivation among a substantial cross-section of some SNP voters, at least many ones I have had contact with.

OK. You did say: all of these romantic notions override a serious discussion of currency, jobs, position on the world stage and other matters of the 'head' that are of true importance to most people...

The movement for independence is not based upon or even formulated from that position. Scottish tack isn't overriding the serious discussion. That is all I want to say.

And yesterday Alex Salmond was on Sky News live from Arbroath speaking about the Declaration of Arbroath and its significance for the referendum. Yesterday was one month from the referendum. Why? What does Arbroath have to do with the concerns of Scottish voters?

I would imagine that he is appealing to some kind of sense of nationhoood. TDoA is normally where popular history sees Scotland's birth. I would agree that he isn't really addressing the issue, but he's a politician...

Also, I personally feel that the First Minister has given extremely vague answers concerning Scotland's future. He claims that the no campaign is guided by 'project fear,' yet he has made numerous promises that have since had doubt cast upon them. I do not see a clear and coherent vision presented for an independent Scotland.

Fair enough. There are dangers as well as opportunities. The point is that the FM is not the dictator of Scotland (despite the concerns of many) and no matter what he says everything will have to be worked out as we go. Some things will not be as good. Some things will be better. Most things probably won't change. Don't you suspect as much yourself?

Also may I ask, what is 'leaving behind a state still hungover from Empire'? I do not think that Britain is overly jingoistic today or nostalgic for imperial days.

I mean that we have a state dominated by people determined to protect interests that linger from imperial times. We don't wage wars for nothing (and we are instigators as much as followers). Our class system is still as entrenched as ever (see Politics and Business for example). Social indicators suggest inequality is rising more sharply than anytime in the last hundred years. This is the hangover I'm talking about.

Of course I have. Upon this decision next month depends the future of my country for every generation that will follow.

I apologise for being rude. What I wrote was uncalled for.

Neither does your reply affect my point, which was that the SNP have always had an independent Scotland as one of their keys aims since their foundation in 1934 and that it has been pushed through primarily by them. Therefore independence will be seen squarely as an 'SNP' victory, not something that non-SNP Scots can embrace as a national project. Independence is seen in popular discourse as practically synonymous with Scottish Nationalism therefore.

I know that the SNP's central pledge was independence. They stood for election on that basis. And won. It would have been outrageous if they were to abandon it because London's political elites weren't keen, don't you think?

Whether or not the papers and Better Together fail to distinguish independece from the SNP (or Alex Salmond) there is a difference. I have never voted SNP, and I doubt I ever will. I also doubt that all the Labour and Lib Dem voters (and members) who are even now swelling the ranks of the yes movement will be ticking a box for the SNP any time soon.

I am talking about Scottish Nationalism and my distaste for nationalism more generally in politics.

I don't know what to make of it. I'm not worried that we'll become a country of sullen bigots refusing to engage the world post-independence.

Anyway, take care.

 

[Secret Chief]

{anxious sweating}

Would it make single malts more expensive????

 

[sandandfoam]

I was listening to all the crap about 'big business' exiting in the event of a yes vote this morning.
If I were a Scottish voter that would swing me to vote 'yes'.
What is the impact in Scotland?

 

[Yerda]

I was listening to all the crap about 'big business' exiting in the event of a yes vote this morning.
If I were a Scottish voter that would swing me to vote 'yes'.
What is the impact in Scotland?

The Yes camp have called it scaremongering, and the No camp are brandishing it as a harbinger of doom. The polls have shifted in the direction of No, but I don't think anyone cares about the polls.

 

[Aquitaine]

Personally, I think it would be unnecessary to carve out a border on the island.
Just hand over Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, and swap the Northern Irish who want to remain in the UK with the Scots who want to leave it.

 

[s2a]

Why not?

Does it even matter?

If so, to whom?

Even then, the question still applies.

Who really cares, and why?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

As an Englishman I think that Scotland should remain in Britain, but should control almost all its own affairs.

Of course, as Salmond is planning to jump straight into the EU if Scotland leaves Britain, the idea of Scottish independence in these circumstances seems ironic.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

If Scotland becomes an autonomous state, then the British will have to abandon Ulster too.

It is curious how the UK Government let Scots free to decide whether to be independent or not...whereas it doesn't give Ulster people the same chance

What? The majority of the people of Ulster are more British than the British.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Because England forced themselves upon those nations, and the "UK" is little more than remnants of England's colonist imperialism.

It is true that Wales became part of Britain because of English conquest. But things have moved on from then and Wales is hardly a subject colony today. It is a part of Britain. The Welsh people don't want to be independent from the UK at the moment.

Scotland was not conquered by England. It entered a union with England and Wales. It is certainly not a colony.

Northern Ireland was settled by the English and Scots (perhaps more of the latter). But it has long had a loyalist majority which wishes to remain part of Britain.

I'm sorry, but this is quite ignorant, anti-English stuff.

 

[Amechania]

Scotland should declare a Caliphate and launch a campaign of wholesale murder of unbelievers.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

They could feed them deep fried mars bars and haggis until they have a heart attack.

 

[Amechania]

Deep-fried Mars bars! MacAllah be praised!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Northern Ireland was settled by the English and Scots (perhaps more of the latter). But it has long had a loyalist majority which wishes to remain part of Britain.

What a quaint way of putting the colonization of Northern Ireland by Protestant Brits, who persecuted the Irish people and suppressed Gaelic culture.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Washed down with Irn-Bru.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

What a quaint way of putting the colonization of Northern Ireland by Protestant Brits, who persecuted the Irish people and suppressed Gaelic culture.

This is true. It is also not really relevant. No good comes from trying to replay such historic disputes. The Protestant majority of Ulster today are not responsible for the persecutions of the past, any more than most of the Roman Catholic population are not response for IRA terrorism.