Time For Bonnie Scotland to Fuck Off?

[Andy_S]

Well chaps, the referendum on the future of the UK is getting closer. Where does RSF stand on this important matter?

(1) Is the Jockish Independence Movement driven by sound rational economic and political motives, or is it merely emotive nationalism?
(2) Regardless of question (1) above: Should the skirt-wearing, doodle-sack playing, sheep-belly eaters give England two fingers and "join Europe' (which they are already in, but never mind)?
(3) Or should the UK continue on its...er....glorious and united political course, as previously?
(4) If Edinburgh does give Westminster the boot, what should those of us left call our nation. "BLANK Kingdom?" ("Un-united Kingdom?" "Slightly Smaller Kingdom?" "Jockless Kingdom?")

As an Englishman with Scottish antecendants (and even some sympathies) I am not sure if it makes much difference to English life, either macro or micro, but of course, when one partner demands a divorce, there is bound to be some ill-feeling by the ditched party.

There again: If we DO return to the jolly era of cross-border warfare, raiding, ruination and rapine: Well, we are martial men, so this is not necessarily such a bad thing, eh?

[emptycloud]

...ye'll never take oor pomme frites

[kenneth fish]

From a strictly economic point of view, I believe that it makes sense for Scotland to be independent.

[Michael]

I don't think there's much reason to think leaving the UK will be good for Scotland. It will just make them susceptible to marginalization and other problems. Globalization needs to break down and eliminate the nation state, so I think it's good from that perspective more than the POV of Scottish people.

[kenneth fish]

I disagree - it is only through the convention of nation states that the welfare of the inhabitants of a region can be addressed. Globalization diminishes the power of local interests in favor of "internatinal" interests, usually to the detriment of the former.

[Michael]

I think we agree on the principle of nation states, but maybe not on Scotland's particular status.

I don't know exactly what Scotland wants to achieve by separation, but the trends of the past 20 or so years indicate that to me the Balkanization of larger states into smaller ones is a way to weaken them, such as the attempt to separate Quebec from Canada back in 1996.

[kenneth fish]

That comparison is apples and oranges. The French Canadians were treated as third class citizens for over a century. The referendum was a means of bolstering their identity and gaining political leverage to address their greivances by aquiring greater local autonomy - it was never seriously believed, even by most members of the Quebec Independence party, that they would make a go of being an independent nation.

Scotland, on the other hand, has definite economic and cultural interests that might be best served by independence.

[Michael]

Didn't it come very close to passing in Quebec?

There are always populist issues that are completely real and valid and deserve attention, but these can be used by politicians, sincere or not, to lead people in various directions, often not for their original intention. A lot of separatism turns out to ultimately be akin to racism, as in the property owners want the right to do whatever they like without interference from a strong central govt, such as the US Civil War.

I think a big part of the question is whether these real issues, that I'm sure Scotland and Quebec have, can be addressed best in the context of a larger federal state and its representative system, or if there is a separation. I think it's best to remain part of the larger state in most cases.

I don't know too many particulars about Scotland, so I have to use the somewhat recent example of the breakup of the USSR. For some of those places, like the Baltics, I think it made sense to leave, but for others, especially something like Kazhakstan or Ukraine, I don't think so. But it's very debatable.

Does the esteemed OP have any Scottish particulars he can interject to keep this on topic?

[Steve James]

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[Michael]

Somebody's trying to achieve enemy combatant status. Maybe wants a free trip to a black site, lol.

[klonk]

(4) If Edinburgh does give Westminster the boot, what should those of us left call our nation. "BLANK Kingdom?" ("Un-united Kingdom?" "Slightly Smaller Kingdom?" "Jockless Kingdom?")

How about... United Kingdom of Middling Britain and Northern Ireland For Now

Grand Kingdom Where The Welsh Still Like The English?

Call it England perhaps?

Old Blighty?

You lost America because you didn't realize that people do not like being told what to do. India. Canada. Obviously the Aussies had some cause to think of you as jailers.

Music hall joke:

"My wife left for the West Indies."
"Oh, Jamaica?"
"No, thank goodness she left of her own accord."

At that I doubt the Scots have enough left in them to do it.

O would, ere I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

[klonk]

Freedom versus free stuff is hard. Wow.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3414582

[klonk]

Freedom versus free stuff is hard. Wow.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3414582

[AllanF]

The only real question should be; "What will change, regardless of the outcome of the vote?"
A: Nothing!

I'd sign up for a revolution of the current political system and the 1% that control it but regardless of the vote the 1% will remain and there will be no significant change for the 99%. (Only 21% of land in Scotland is registered on the Land Registry since its inception in 1979 as huge tracks of land *sorry* remain in the hands of historical land owners).

Interesting that Cameron is washing his hands of it, given that Churchill made damn sure he had an open debate with republicans in Ireland despite death threats (from Unionists). But then i am sure Cameron has been told, on no account should be take on the Fish (Salmon and his No2 Sturgen - i'm not making this up) as his London-centirc policies and the Etonian "yah boo sucks" approach would result in him getting his ass handed to him. If ever there was a symbol of everything that Scottish people dislike then it is Cameron.

Frankly both sides can go jump off the forth road bridge as the constant negative campaigning and the superficial straw man arguments have destroyed what could/should have been an opportunity to rip up the rule book and engage in an enlightening discussion on how best to govern, utilize resources and examine the role of the UK/Scotland in the world. A role that Cameron seems to think should be the same as when the empire was at its zenith - given his background it comes as no surprise that he thinks that way - but is so detached from the reality of the world today. Equally the moronic moral high ground that "Yes" campaigners sometimes roll out (that Scotland and Scottish people would never invade/colonize other countries) is to deny a) human nature - that conquest is a part of our DNA and given the economic and military power and opportunity we as a species will inevitably go on the warpath. b) to deny actual history (see the Darien Disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme).

Of course the media down south doesn't help matters as anytime this issues is brought up it inevitably results in snide remarks about alcohol and diet. Intelligent stuff! And just serves to show that there is a much bigger cultural difference than most people (down south) would acknowledge. (and i'm not talking about alcohol and diet - as that is a case of pot and kettle). Having just spent a lovely weekend with my Godparents who are extremely 'middle England' -my godfather's grandfather was the Duke of Manchester, though that means zero to him in terms of titles etc - it was abundantly clear that they don't have much idea of the complexity of the issues/historical and current involved not to mention the political make up and sentiment of the people of Scotland. (It is significant that there is only one Conservative MP in the whole of Scotland...the first for many years.)

In short...Independence? Romantically it's nice; in reality nothing will change other than the fact that the nationalists won't be able to blame anyone else but themselves for problems in Scotland.

[Rant over!]

[gzregorz]

I think big nations breaking into smaller nations is a good thing. I actually wish the US would break up into two nations one with all of the blue states and one with the South and other red states, because with the way things are now no American is satisfied with the direction of the country no matter which political party you belong to.

As far as Scotland, as long as the UK is in the EU I don't think the situation would change all that much. If anything it seems to me that the Scots would benefit more if London had nothing to do with their affairs. But I haven't read up on the subject or issues, so what do I know?