by BoogerMan 55 Replies latest social current
"We can NEVER be free" sounds like Mel Gibson in Braveheart. đ
Freedom to choose the E.U. parliament to control your borders, laws & taxes, instead of the U.K. parliament?
In a global economy, Scotland will always be subjected to the T's & C's of someone else in order to survive.
Being part of the UK gives it a fighting chance. On its own, it will never be "independent," it'll be gobbled up.
were you in favour of France or Germany having a vote on whether the UK should be allowed to break up the European Union?
Great point, love it!
No, it's a completely spurious point. The two referenda are not comparable as I pointed out on page 1.
The UK leaving the EU did not 'break up the European Union' (nor was it intended to), whereas Scotland separating from England & Wales would effectively break up the UK.
Scotland is the second largest member of the Union, the Scottish crown is equal in prestige and history to the English crown and the two have been intertwined for centuries (hence 'United Kingdom'). That's why Charles had to be crowned not just at Westminster but in Edinburgh too. (The royal coat of arms features both the English lion and the Scottish unicorn as 'supporters'.)
In contrast, while the UK was an important financial market for the EU, being the third largest contributor after Germany and France, it was just one of 28 nations, was not a founder member, and had only been part of that particular union for around 40 years - not even one generation.
Over the 300+ years of the union of the United Kingdom, multiple generations of Scots and English have become inter-related and have a shared culture, strong ties that cannot be said of the UK with the EU.
The modern obsession with Scottish independence is driven by extreme Scots Nats who have stoked it among more moderate Scots using dissatisfaction with Tory central government since Thatcher in the 1980s - but plenty of English and Welsh are fed up with the Tories too! Sadly, the extreme anti-English sentiments of many Scots Nats are inflaming English Nats too (who I also think should shut up) - both sides ignorant (or indifferent) to the damage to the whole nation they would cause if they get their own way.
The answer is not to take your ball and run away, but to unite to drive political change at national (UK) level.
Journeyman you are entitled to your opinion that Scotland shouldnât be independent. But if you are arguing that Scotland has no right to choose independence then I donât think there is any basis for discussion here. Even the most extreme unionists at Holyrood or Westminster have argued against independence but have accepted that Scotland has the right to choose independence if it wishes. Because they have generally understood and recognised that the idea that the union is not voluntary is fatal to the concept of union.
None of your whataboutery over the EU works. Scotland is under 10% of the population of UK. Whereas the UK was more than 10% of the population of the EU. If you are saying that England has control over Scotland in a way that Europe didnât have control over Scotland then you are turning Scotland into a colony or a captive state.
The closest analogy to Scotland leaving the union of course is Ireland leaving the union in 1921. Hardly anybody now argues that Ireland had no right to independence or that Westminster didnât handle it atrociously. And where is the movement in the Republic of Ireland to rejoin the UK? There isnât one. Or if there is itâs so tiny it doesnât have any representation at any level of politics in the Republic of Ireland. Because Ireland is now more prosperous and outward looking than the UK. The idea that Scotland would be the first country in world history to âregretâ independence is pure unionist fantasy. Countries such as Ireland that declare independence donât look back.
The union of the crowns took place in 1603 and the 2014 referendum didnât propose to end that union. It was the voluntary political union of the Scottish state with the English state in 1707 that will be dissolved on independence.
Scotland is under 10% of the population of UK. Whereas the UK was more than 10% of the population of the EU - but this is a moot point because the EU survives the UK leaving it. By your own admission Scotland leaving the UK automatically breaks it up.
#1 - Scotland leaving the UK, and the UK leaving the EU are two completely different things.
#2 - five million Scots should not be allowed to break up the UK - the whole of the UK electorate should vote on it.
But if you are arguing that Scotland has no right to choose independence then I donât think there is any basis for discussion here.
Slim - Yes, I'm beginning to feel there is no basis for discussion here - but more because you're clearly not bothering to read my posts. I know I don't always write concisely, but please pay me the respect of reading what I write before commenting! Back on page 1 I said this (in part):
"...of course a referendum cannot be put off indefinitely in a democracy, but it would be massively wasteful and damaging to the whole of the Union IMO, and so that is why I would prefer to see desire for the whole thing fade among Scots themselves..."
None of your whataboutery over the EU works.
My "whataboutery"? I wasn't the one who said "were you in favour of France or Germany having a vote on whether the UK should be allowed to break up the European Union", bringing in a separate subject.
It seems LoveUni's response above has caught you out in the false comparison, so I'll leave that there.
Your comment about "control" again shows you clearly didn't read my last post commenting on how mutually deep the union between Scotland and England goes - it's not just a set of legislation or a fancy flag, and it's not about being a "vassal state", a phrase you used earlier. Perhaps you will understand my point better if I compare it to breaking up a marriage (Scotland leaving England) vs a tenant leaving a group of flatmates (UK leaving the EU) - of course both arrangements are by consent, but the first is much deeper and more meaningful than the other, and breaking it up is potentially much more far-reaching and damaging (to both/all parties) than the other, therefore should be considered far more carefully, which I see little evidence of from the clamour for repeated IndyRefs by the Nats, who seem to be chasing a nebulous dream of 'freedom' at any price.
Your next piece of "whataboutery" (see, I can play that game too) in bringing in Ireland fails to recognise that religious differences between England and Ireland were far more deep-seated and antagonistic and that the union of the two had been less stable and considerably more fraught with trouble in the 'recent' past (ie: the latter century or so of mutual relations) than that between Scotland and England. I don't ever recall Scots Nats occupying a post office in Sauchiehall Street and the British army enforcing martial law across Glasgow!
You've not addressed any of the practical and economic points others have raised either about budgets, currency, trade, customs and border policies, etc - something which I haven't commented on yet because personally, I think the mutual damage to all the constituent parts of the UK by Scotland leaving is more existential and far deeper than just those practicalities, although they of course are complicated enough.
On most subjects I often agree with your points and look forward to reading your posts, but on this one I can see your mind is set on repeating your mantra of "Scotland has the right to choose independence if it wishes" (something noone on here has disputed, with the possible exception of LoveUni who proposes a UK-wide vote) and various appeals to emotion by talking about things like "control", "insult", "regret", "colony", "captive state" and so on. It's obviously something you feel deeply personally about, and that's fine, but clearly none of the issues raised by others so far are registering with you, which is making debate rather pointless.
