|
zero alpha posted:I wouldn't call it identical. Heck, ethno-linguistic separation was one way they could justify the highland clearances and centuries of suppressing Gaelic and highland dress. True, but I think we're all at the point where we agree the Clearances were a Bad Thing. Besides, they weren't really about nationalism; that was just a convenient excuse for greed.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:That is absolutely the least of Scotlands worries should we gain independence. The chances of being invaded by anyone let alone England are almost nil. Besides, they didn't have much luck the last few times they tried invading us.  But yeah this is silly, I'd be more worried about the Americans electing some lunatic who nukes us for having socialised medicine or something. zero alpha posted:I wouldn't call it identical. Heck, ethno-linguistic separation was one way they could justify the highland clearances and centuries of suppressing Gaelic and highland dress. Genetically the makeup of Scots, Irish, Welsh and English are quite similar but that has never been reflected in policy and culture, with the Anglo-Saxon vs Celt narrative in play. Yes, my Dad remembers getting the belt for talking in Scots at school. This kind of poo poo isn't exactly the ancient memory many would say it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Seeing as no one else has picked up the lefty articles posted earlier.TerryCheesecake posted:This is an interesting article http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2012/05/nationalism-independence-and-the-break-up-of-britain-an-interview-with-neil-davidson/ Marred slightly by it being an interview with a bandwagon jumper for independence. Until a couple of years ago he was totally opposed to independence. I am amused though by some terms used throughout which will go over the head of anyone not familiar with the Scottish Left. For his opposition see for example the debate with Alan McCombes in 2003 http://soundcloud.com/user7272053/alan-mccombes-neil-davidson or his actually very good book Discovering the Scottish Revolution 1692-1746 which was published around the same time. Or as recently as 2007 another article in ISJ Socialists and Scottish Independence The issues around the Greens dropping out of the official Yes campaign can probably be linked to the creation of the Radical Independence Conference
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
It isn't as if Scotland is offering the chance to abdicate from the human race, we do have friends all over the globe some in surprising places. Canada: Train Highland military units, something Scotland doesn't do any more, large ex-pat population, Scots are still emigrating to Canada today. United States of America: large ex-pat population, possibly more mainstream than the Irish ex-pats, celebrate tartan day, could throw a rock up any mainstreet and hit a handful of people with a Scottish surname. Australia: large ex pat population through both Imperial Administration of its days as a penal colony and penal deportation, still have Scots emigrating there today. New Zealand: as above, possible model for an independent Scotland, small population hilly/mountainous terrain, lots of sheep farming, equally as bad at Association Football (soccer). Scandinavia: shared history through expansion of the Danes/Vikings, the Hebrides were part of Norway until recently (in European historical terms), added bonus of reconnecting with Scandanavia as it will annoy Estonians who have been trying since the collapse of the USSR to do so. France: The Auld Alliance, supported Scots in their armed struggle with the English prior to the Union, gave sanctuary to our exiled Kings, Scots and Irish mercenaries always fought with the Imperial French against the English, im not sure if it is universal in Scottish schools but most people i have spoken to did at least two years of French Language with other European Languages being elective. The idea that leaving the Union will cast Scotland adrift as a nation apart from the rest of the world is laughable, sure there will be a gap between our current EU membership as a region to membership as a nation if we even decide to go that way, as for UN membership i doubt we would miss what we never had in the first place, NATO is essentially a cartel created for the USA to strongarm other nations into conflicts that they have nothing to do with and i would welcome leaving it, you can keep George Robertson btw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
UN membership, at least, would not be an issue. Other nations which have become independent through an agreed political process (rather than a unilateral declaration) generally join the UN within a few weeks. Slovakia and the Czech republic joined 19 days after their mutual independence, South Sudan joined 5 days after its independence. Whether there'd be a gap in EU membership is a bit less clear, but I would expect an issue like that to be an important aspect of any independence negotiations, and I can't see any reason why the EU would cause barriers to automatic Scottish succession into the status of full membership, and there are compelling reasons why certain member states would want to prevent Scotland leaving the EU, like the Common Fisheries Policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Jinkii posted:It isn't as if Scotland is offering the chance to abdicate from the human race, we do have friends all over the globe some in surprising places. From the perspective of an American, a lot of the reason we tend to romanticize the UK has more to do with Scotland than England - as you say, Scots ancestry is extremely common and there's a shared history of struggle against the English. I would certainly leave the US for independent Scotland in a heartbeat - I was planning on Australia, but a left-leaning Scotland would be even better. Skilled workers are going to abandon the US in droves and Scotland would be an ideal destination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what is the average Scot's opinion about having been dragged into the war in Iraq? -Which I (naively?) assume they wouldn't have been, had they been independent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:20
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Out of curiosity, what is the average Scot's opinion about having been dragged into the war in Iraq? I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority British opinion was against the war in Iraq anyway, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Out of curiosity, what is the average Scot's opinion about having been dragged into the war in Iraq? I'm paraphrasing, but I think it can be summed up as: "Git tae gently caress fannybaws." I was in Edinburgh at the time, and there was plenty of protests here, but I think the general attitude was in line with that of the rest of the uk, guided carefully by the media. Opinion was then reinforced after the fact by this which was hyped beyond all recognition in the same media.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
I don't think anyone with an ounce of critical thinking in their head who wasn't a Torie or a Republican wanted to invade Iraq. Still want to know what will stop the IMF and World Bank from making GBS threads all over Scotland's (possible) sovereignty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I don't think anyone with an ounce of critical thinking in their head who wasn't a Torie or a Republican wanted to invade Iraq. While the Tories did support him on Iraq you do realise that Tony Blair was a Labour prime minister, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Jonnty posted:While the Tories did support him on Iraq you do realise that Tony Blair was a Labour prime minister, right? Yes, although New Labour = Labour without all that hard critical thinking
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Besides, they didn't have much luck the last few times they tried invading us. Really? England won the First War of Independence in 1296, and while Scotland did win independence 40 years later in the Second War it was a Pyrrhic victory that bankrupted the country and completely eroded the support of the Scots King. The next and last time England invaded Scotland was 1544. That campaign culminated in the Battle of Pinkie Clough, where the Scots were hammered so badly it made Flodden Field look like a glorious victory; England would have annexed Scotland again afterwards if not for the Auld Alliance. England may not have made out like bandits every time they sent an army North, but they rarely came off worse than the Scots. I also had to chuckle at Jinkii's claim that Scotland has shared history with Scandinavia because their ancestors invaded, raped his ancestors and stole their land. If that's grounds for friendship between nations, Scotland may as well stay in the Union. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Seems to me that an independent Scotland should be pretty worried about their neighbours to the south. In Scotland you'd have a young, small, oil rich nation with a tiny (non-nuclear?) military, no EU or UN membership (at least immediately - these things take time to be negotiated and ratified) and maybe not even worldwide recognition as a nation yet. And in the UK you'd have a rich, nuclear nation with ten times the military power, a permanent seat on the UN security council, powerful long term allies, a very long history of aggression towards Scotland, and recent form in invading weak, oil rich countries. This is the most idiotic thing written in this thread, and this thread has Jedit and Jinkii posting in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Still want to know what will stop the IMF and World Bank from making GBS threads all over Scotland's (possible) sovereignty. What interest would the IMF and WB have in a self sufficient nation leading the way in renewable energy and slapping the Donald in his ample forehead? its not like Scotland is a flood plagued third world nation like Bangladesh. we wouldnt need their help and we wouldnt ask for it, why would you even ask this? we use the same tax payout now as we used previous to devolution, we can afford fees free higher education, free senior care and free medical prescriptions, the question you should be asking is what is westminster doing with your tax £ that they cant also offer this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
I'm in the US. Just wondering what will keep Scotland out of the growing EU mess, not that it isn't in it now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:48
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I also had to chuckle at Jinkii's claim that Scotland has shared history with Scandinavia because their ancestors invaded, raped his ancestors and stole their land. If that's grounds for friendship between nations, Scotland may as well stay in the Union. the fact you even believe this to be a thing shows how little you know about the Vikings and humanity in general. inb4 blood eagle phallacy E: anti viking stuff Jinkii fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jun 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Really? England won the First War of Independence in 1296 No they didn't, they lost badly? Saying England won is like saying the US won the Korean War because MacArthur got all the way up to the Yalu. Not that anyone should consider feudal power grabs especially relevant to the modern-day situation, but still. That said the Declaration of Arbroath is a nice forerunner for popular nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I'm in the US. Just wondering what will keep Scotland out of the growing EU mess, not that it isn't in it now. It is not the EU that is in trouble, it is the Eurozone. The Eurozone is in peril, but unless Scotland joins the Euro, it would effect them more than it would effect Sweden or Denmark.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Edit: nevermind, that was late.
zero alpha fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jun 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Jinkii posted:Scandinavia: shared history through expansion of the Danes/Vikings, the Hebrides were part of Norway until recently (in European historical terms), added bonus of reconnecting with Scandanavia as it will annoy Estonians who have been trying since the collapse of the USSR to do so. Jinkii posted:the fact you even believe this to be a thing shows how little you know about the Vikings and humanity in general.   An invitation to the Nordic Council seems like it would be appropriate if you ever get your independence, you're certainly in the right region for it to be relevant. Maybe not a full membership right away, but an observer/associate status should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
BTW Jinkii the Hebrides have been a part of Scotland for a pretty long time, Norway effectively traded them to us in the 13th century. Shetland though is more recent in the 15th century and there is still a very strong norse culture there, probably because even after becoming opart of Scotland it maintained trade and links with Northern Europe much more strongly than the western isles did.
TheVertigoOfBliss fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jun 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
GimpChimp posted:No they didn't, they lost badly? You have a strange definition of "losing badly". England crushed the Scottish army at the Battle of Falkirk, sent most of the Scottish leaders into exile, and accepted their surrender and homage to the English crown after the capture and execution of William Wallace. It's deemed a Scottish victory because they managed to retain their independence, but that only happened because the English had to respond to a new threat from France before they could consolidate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Jedit posted:You have a strange definition of "losing badly". England crushed the Scottish army at the Battle of Falkirk, sent most of the Scottish leaders into exile, and accepted their surrender and homage to the English crown after the capture and execution of William Wallace. It's deemed a Scottish victory because they managed to retain their independence, but that only happened because the English had to respond to a new threat from France before they could consolidate. Im sorry but Braveheart would like a word with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:It is not the EU that is in trouble, it is the Eurozone. The Eurozone is in peril, but unless Scotland joins the Euro, it would effect them more than it would effect Sweden or Denmark. Although the problems in the Eurozone seem to stem from the fact that monetary policy is set in Germany, while fiscal policy is set by each member nation. If Scotland pegs the Scottish pound to the UK pound, then you would run into that same mismatch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
Jedit posted:You have a strange definition of "losing badly". England crushed the Scottish army at the Battle of Falkirk, sent most of the Scottish leaders into exile, and accepted their surrender and homage to the English crown after the capture and execution of William Wallace. It's deemed a Scottish victory because they managed to retain their independence, but that only happened because the English had to respond to a new threat from France before they could consolidate. It's deemed a Scottish victory because the treaty that ended the first war of independence said this: Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton posted:...We will and grant by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors whatsover, with the common advice, assent and consent of the prelates, princes, earls, barons and the commons of our realm in our Parliament, that the Kingdom of Scotland, within its own proper marches as they were held and maintained in the time of King Alexander of Scotland, last deceased, of good memory, shall belong to our dearest ally and friend, the magnificent prince, Lord Robert, by God's grace illustrious King of Scotland, and to his heirs and successors, separate in all things from the Kingdom of England, whole, free and undisturbed in perpetuity, without any kind of subjection, service claim or demand. And by these presents we denounce and demit to the King of Scotland, his heirs and successors, whatsoever right we or our predecessors have put forward in any way in bygone times to the aforesaid Kingdom of Scotland. And, for ourselves and our heirs and successors, we cancel wholly and utterly all obligations, conventions and compacts undertaken in whatsoever manner with our predecessors, at whatsoever times, by whatsoever Kings or inhabitants, clergy or laity, of the same Kingdom of Scotland, concerning the subjection of the realm of Scotland and its inhabitants. And wheresoever any letters, charters, deeds or instruments may be discovered bearing upon obligations, conventions and compacts of this nature, we will that they be deemed cancelled, invalid, of no effect and void, and of no value or moment. If England won the first war of independence, you sure as hell can't tell it from the treaty they signed to end it. The first war of independence didn't end with William Wallace's death. The first half of the first war ended then, but you don't win a football match just for being 1-0 up at half time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Jedit posted:You have a strange definition of "losing badly". England crushed the Scottish army at the Battle of Falkirk, sent most of the Scottish leaders into exile, and accepted their surrender and homage to the English crown after the capture and execution of William Wallace. It's deemed a Scottish victory because they managed to retain their independence, but that only happened because the English had to respond to a new threat from France before they could consolidate. Less strange than your definition of "winning" being "ultimately losing miserably to a smaller, poorer military force", given that wars generally hinge on the conclusion and not the high water mark of success.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
What i find facinating about the timing is currently the Ministry of Defence is gutting the historical company names of the Scottish Regiment who were until recently Scottish Regiments in their own right, the Mirror Group Newspapers (Daily Record and Sunday Mail in Scotland) are doing their level worst to pay lipservice to this, claiming it is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of Scots who have served the UK (sic), bonus points for them putting this tripe on facing pages to their Salmond attack articles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:Although the problems in the Eurozone seem to stem from the fact that monetary policy is set in Germany, while fiscal policy is set by each member nation. If Scotland pegs the Scottish pound to the UK pound, then you would run into that same mismatch. not necessarily, it could go the other way, the UK treasury already robs the people of England and Wales of Fees free higher education, free OAP care and free prescriptions, Scotland hasn't raised taxes at all since Devolution, using the same pool of cash given to the Labour/Libdem co-alition in the first term of the Scottish Parliament, that money has to be going somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
So uh, what can be done to help this effort? Do you guys have superpacs? Or crazy nationalistic Billionaires? Who is the "Face" of independence? Any celebrity endorsements? On that topic do you think the Murdoc ilk will pull for this effort? That would make for strange bed fellows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
No superpacs Scrooge McDuck Sean Connery Salmond and Murdoch are becoming BFFs Yes, it would.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 11:06
|
|
|
One of the main reasons I worry about Independence is because if that rear end in a top hat Murdoch is on side it MUST be rotten somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:38
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:It's deemed a Scottish victory because the treaty that ended the first war of independence said this: You forgot to quote Scotland's half of the terms: they only got all those things you mentioned if they paid England £20,000. Those terms were placed on the table for no other reason than to get the Scots to go home feeling happy, so England could concentrate on the French. That's why the kingdom of Scotland lay "whole, free and undisturbed in perpetuity" for all of five years before the English came back again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Touchdown Boy posted:One of the main reasons I worry about Independence is because if that rear end in a top hat Murdoch is on side it MUST be rotten somehow. I see it a means to an end. Once we get rid of the Tories, then we can get rid of Murdoch. It's naive to think that (as scummy as he and his papers are) the Murdoch press isn't and wont still be influential during this whole process of independence thus it's much better to have them for it than against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:45
|
|
|
Jedit posted:You forgot to quote Scotland's half of the terms: they only got all those things you mentioned if they paid England £20,000. Those terms were placed on the table for no other reason than to get the Scots to go home feeling happy, so England could concentrate on the French. That's why the kingdom of Scotland lay "whole, free and undisturbed in perpetuity" for all of five years before the English came back again. You still haven't explained how this means England won the war. Scotland was independent at the end of the war. The war was fought by England to annex Scotland into the Kingdom of England. This goal was not achieved. In fact Scotland rose up, overthrew the English, defeated them at Bannockburn, successfully invaded Yorkshire and came within a few feet of killing Edward III in the final battle of the war (which Scotland won). But the English won the first war of independence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware it's not a majority view, but there seems to have been a perception among some outside Scotland that both Alex Salmond and the SNP are bastions of integrity compared to the usual Westminster troika and their corresponding leaders. Besides the capitulation to Donald Trump and his catastrophe of a golf course and the more recent revelations about Rupert Murdoch, they've had the long-standing support of Stagecoach chairman Brian Souter. As well as monopolising the bus industry post-privatisation he was a key funder of the campaign against the repeal of the homophobic Section 28 a decade ago. What really irks me as well is despite their alleged social democratic nature, they advocate cutting corporation tax to 20%. Unfortunately though they've emerged as the vanguard party of independence, so might as well deal with it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Well, they didn't used to be called the Tartan Tories for nothing! Salmond is a slimy bastard, no doubt about it, and unfortunately he's the only major politician
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
If the Unionists continue their line of argument that goes "no, you can't leave, this is what will go wrong," I think pro-independence might gain more traction. When do you ever hear a Unionist say "here's what's good about the union" beyond a few platitudes about Britishness? Which, by the way, tend to be English things?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
dadrips posted:As far as I'm aware it's not a majority view, but there seems to have been a perception among some outside Scotland that both Alex Salmond and the SNP are bastions of integrity compared to the usual Westminster troika and their corresponding leaders. Besides the capitulation to Donald Trump and his catastrophe of a golf course and the more recent revelations about Rupert Murdoch, they've had the long-standing support of Stagecoach chairman Brian Souter. As well as monopolising the bus industry post-privatisation he was a key funder of the campaign against the repeal of the homophobic Section 28 a decade ago. What really irks me as well is despite their alleged social democratic nature, they advocate cutting corporation tax to 20%. Unfortunately though they've emerged as the vanguard party of independence, so might as well deal with it! The public sector is absolutely huge on Scotland, which is both a good and a bad thing. The bad thing is that private investment is moderate, but has been fairly stagnant for the last 20 years, mainly because most businesses choose to invest in London, Manchester etc. Whether you like it or not investment in creating a strong private sector does have its advantages and the snp feel that the only way to achieve that is lower corporation tax, thus enticing investment into the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Jedit posted:You forgot to quote Scotland's half of the terms: they only got all those things you mentioned if they paid England £20,000. Those terms were placed on the table for no other reason than to get the Scots to go home feeling happy, so England could concentrate on the French. That's why the kingdom of Scotland lay "whole, free and undisturbed in perpetuity" for all of five years before the English came back again. Edward I failed in his plan to subjugate Scotland and use its taxes and soldiers to fight France, hosed up his campaign in Europe at tremendous cost, and died leaving it to his son to personally raise and lead a huge army to one of the worst English defeats in military history at Bannockburn. Edward III launching the second war of independence wasn't the culmination of some long con on England's part, he had been a boy when the treaty was signed in his name and found the terms humiliating - and in any case England didn't win then either. Even if England hadn't settled with France a full 29 years prior to the Treaty, and de facto lost the war in Scotland 15 years beforehand, why would it possibly constitute a victory or even excuse a loss to have been simultaneously losing on a separate front to your opponent's ally? Wouldn't that just constitute hopeless strategic failure on their part?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:49
|
|