Printable version of thread

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2019, 07:27 AM

Should Scotland become an independent country Y/N?

I'd be interested in your thoughts, too.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 28th January 2019, 07:32 AM

Absolutely!

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2019, 08:02 AM

One cynical reason against it, would be that it would leave the rest of the UK with a virtually permanent Tory majority - at least under FPTP.

Even if they did gain independence, would it really stop them blaming the English for all their problem, though?

Posted by: The Snake 28th January 2019, 09:37 AM

I voted Yes too on this straw poll. The case for independence is far more convincing now than in the first Scottish referendum now there is the added staying in the EU factor. I would say if IndyRef2 was held tomorrow Yes would win.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th January 2019, 09:58 AM

I have completely reversed my stance due to Brexit. I see no reason for Scotland to be forced down with the rest of us if it chooses to rejoin the EU, and any consequence on England's politics is self-inflicted and tough luck.

Anyone is free to blame the English for anything they historically did, and that applies to all countries of the world, including Scotland as part of the UK where they went along with dubious political acts.....

England: Nice country you have there. I'll take it!

Great Britain: Nice country you have there. I'll take it!

Just saying.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2019, 10:02 AM

You realise it wouldn't be a case of *staying in* the EU, rather, applying as a new country?



That hasn't Scotland's case for over 300 years

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2019, 10:06 AM

For info :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence

Posted by: Iz~ 28th January 2019, 10:14 AM

I was against it at the point of the referendum for selfish electoral reasons mostly, but also because it seemed somewhat foolhardy economically.

Here's the thing though, Scotland was an independent country for approximately a millennium, doing just fine without the English and often against the English. It's only not in the same situation as Ireland (Republic) because of the Acts Of Union and a fiercely independent monarchical, unified tradition (unlike the Irish clans) that ironically, led it down the path towards union with England, along with some unfortunate colonial adventures that left it bankrupt. If we talk historical shoulds and shouldn'ts, then I think it's far more of a 'Scotland shouldn't be in the union'.

Having actually visited Scotland for the first time in the intervening years it feels quite different from England, the sort of difference that a French speaker might feel going from France to Wallonia. It might as well be a different country, and in this modern age I'd support what borders we have tending to the lines of traditional culture and ethnic groups.

Personally, I enjoy the Union, that we have four countries standing together as one, though I wish they were a bit more equal in size so issues on representation don't come up. But given the current political situation, I think Scotland would do a lot better out of the Union than in it right now. Their Assembly seems from afar quite a marvel and I'm sure it could stand on its own merits independently.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2019, 10:21 AM

At very least, they are sensible enough to adopt a PR system.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2019, 10:24 AM

OTOH, that might finally overcome Labour's resistance to PR...

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 28th January 2019, 11:00 AM

Yes, definitely. Why do they deserve to be tied to this festering sinkhole of a country?

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2019, 11:21 AM

This 'festering sinkhole' still seems to be appealing to some - even risking their lives to get here...

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2019, 01:55 PM

The UK government under Tony Blair chose the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. I think the use of STV for local elections was a Scottish government decision but I may be wrong.

Posted by: vidcapper 28th January 2019, 02:51 PM

You think it was maybe an attempt to 'divide & rule' then?

Posted by: Suedehead2 28th January 2019, 04:43 PM

The i main reason for having PR for the Scottish parliament (and Welsh assembly) was to avoid accusations that they were setting up legislatures that would have a permanent Labour majority.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th January 2019, 06:29 AM

Pity that logic isn't applied to the 2 party system in the HoC then...

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 29th January 2019, 09:01 AM

Having been stuck with Tory governments we didn’t vote for and a Brexit we didn’t vote for, what on earth makes you think Scotland would give one iota of a shit about England reaping what it sowed? Iirc Scotland’s vote was only needed once since WW2 for a labour gov, the rest of the time they managed fine with England & Wales.

And shove your xenophobic nonsense. The English aren’t blamed for Jack shit. The movement acknowledges that the two countries want different things and that a lack of local decision making over key policies is holding us back

Scotland is aware of that. Scotland is also aware that even the Spanish are rolling out the red carpet to welcome us - as Brexit makes it a model that Catalonia cannot follow.

The Act of Union was shoddy and in a number of ways Scotland never stopped being an independent country. It retained its, superior, legal system, it’s education system, it’s healthcare system and a unique cultural identity



Polls are misleading at the moment because of Brexit. The material change of circumstances changes the polling quite significantly. Our future of no deal changes things to an independence victory far more decisive than the EU Ref that lead us here

Well.....

It’s more accurate to say that it was designed to present majorities full stop. Although that was secondary to its aim of preventing the nationalists of ever gaining power (very pleasingly, a spectacular failure)

Posted by: vidcapper 29th January 2019, 10:18 AM

how come nationalism is considered xenophobic for England, but perfectly acceptable in Scotland, then?



Surely every poll since June 2016 will necessarily have had the Brexit factor built in?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 29th January 2019, 10:43 AM

Because English nationalism is blood and soil nationalism but Scottish nationalism is civic nationalism.


I.e. EngNats hate immigrants but ScotNats are fervently pro-immigrants

Posted by: Harve 29th January 2019, 10:59 AM

Yes.

Posted by: vidcapper 29th January 2019, 11:21 AM

Care to explain the difference?

Don't say 'look it up' - I'm interested in how *you* interpret it?



Even English immigrants?

Posted by: Harve 29th January 2019, 04:28 PM

Hello, English immigrant here, and, yes? Do you really look at pro-independence politicians and see anti-Englishness?

Posted by: vidcapper 29th January 2019, 04:44 PM

That's why I tried to ask in a neutral way.

Posted by: Suedehead2 29th January 2019, 05:19 PM

English nationalism tends to be expressed as English superiority and exceptionalism. The last 2 1/2 years have reinforced that with (mainly English) Quitters sticking to their belief that the EU should offer the UK far more than they offer any other non-members.

Posted by: vidcapper 30th January 2019, 06:55 AM

Can you demonstrate that English nationalism (in terms of temporary UKIP support rather than knuckle-dragging BNP etc), was anything other than 'civic', rather than 'blood & soil'. Or indeed that there is no 'blood & soil' nationalism amongst SNP voters?

Also, I don't think it's legitimate to equate 'former members' with 'non-members', as the latter will never have made any contribution, economic or otherwise, to the EU, whereas our contribution was major.