|
I suspect the 1:1 peg between the Scottish pound and sterling would have to be changed relatively quickly since you really need your monetary policy to not counteract your fiscal policy (which sounds like it would differ from that of Westminster's), and the Scottish Government would probably want to avoid a Scottish version of Black Wednesday. There's a question of what happens to all the UK Government offices in Scotland. Not all of them would necessarily transfer over - for example the Student Loans Company is in Scotland currently. I suspect a lot of jobs would move south of the border since the departments that transferred over wouldn't need so many people to serve a smaller population. In the long run the English wouldn't be able to countenance the public purse being used to employ public sector staff in an independent country. There's a lot of nitty gritty that needs to be sorted out before the referendum.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Jedit posted:Mosley was a fascist because Hitler was a fascist, but they were both racists because they were nationalists. Whatever you might you think of their agenda, the SNP are explicitly not ethno-nationalists, nor is there anything that can be levelled against them for Scottish nationalism that can't be thrown back at you for backing British nationalism. So maybe lay off the Godwin's Law poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Kin posted:A divided UK may force the drastic political change that's been needed to break the UK out of the endless Labour/Tory cycle. Yes, in rump-England we'll probably get a choice between the Tories on the left and the British Union of Fascists on the right. Speaking as someone living in the North, thanks guys! ;p
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Insofar as they a) had black shirts on and b) obviously hated everyone who wasn't them, yes. Leggsy, you can take umbrage with that assessment all you like because it has nothing to do with fascism. Mosley was a fascist because Hitler was a fascist, but they were both racists because they were nationalists. I will agree with you that directly comparing Salmond to Hitler is a step too far, but as for Ian Davidson's comment that not letting anyone else have a say is what the SNP do and what fascists do I can take no issue against it because I have seen the SNP do this with my own eyes. Nationalism =/= Racism. By your logic, any country that has ever sought independence for any reason ever was due to a fascist hatred or their parent country, there is such a thing a left-wing nationalism you know. As for the SNP apparently "not letting anyone have a say", I just have to have a big  at this. The SNP are subject to some of the harshest scrutiny by the mainstream media and the "unbiased" BBC. Now i'm not saying that the SNP shouldn't be scrutinised, but the free pass the unionists are getting from the press is sickening.Although I would like to see some examples of the SNP's apparent Goebbels like suppression(to keep the Nazi theme going).
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Yes, in rump-England we'll probably get a choice between the Tories on the left and the British Union of Fascists on the right. Speaking as someone living in the North, thanks guys! ;p And perhaps that might encourage the organised development of a proper English Left wing party (and the rejection of Labour) that would represent everyone that's not in the South East (i.e. all you poor suffering sods in the North and Wales). Kin fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jun 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
Milotic posted:
[This is just my current understanding and expectation of events. I'll be delighted to be corrected, my reply to Milotic's post starts after this bracket] "a lot" is an enormous understatement, I think, but most of the nitty-gritty will take place after a "Yes" referendum. Take the simple example of the Trident base at Faslane, and the nuclear weapons store at Coulport. These will clearly be rump-UK assets post-independence, given the SNP stance on all things nuclear. Where in the rump-UK is it suitable, and politically possible, to recreate these facilities? How long does it take to build them? Could there be an interim arrangement while the rest of the independence process goes forward, where rump-UK nuclear assets are held in an independent Scotland (with rent paid?) until the new facilities are completed. How do the Americans feel about this - after all the missiles stored at Coulport (but not the warheads) are leased from them? Only the current-UK government has the authority to deal with them on these matters, so what legal framework do we establish so that the planning-to-be-independent Scottish Government has a substantive say in the matter? This issue alone could take years to get a coherent transfer plan together. Every single current-UK institution with a presence in Scotland will involve similar tortuous negotiations. Mostly not involving the US, I hasten to add! But the US isn't the only country that the current-UK has treaties with. This PDF document from 1999 (discussing the transition process) https://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/51.pdf reckons that at that time there were around 12,000 current-UK treaties in force. Every single one of those needs to be considered, and possibly amended. What body decides if an independent Scotland is going to abide by the current-UK negotiated terms, or otherwise. Who negotiates with the other treaty parties? So, the negotiations will take years. Let's consider how to implement the many, many resulting bills that need to be drafted and implemented post-negotiation. All of these that involve current-UK assets and powers will need to be passed at Westminster. This is the House that is sovereign, and legally, if not morally, it could dissolve the Scottish Parliament tomorrow. Even a Westminster government with a large majority struggles to find enough Parliamentary time to get all its Queen's speech stuff through. Is a pro-Union Westminster really going to spend much time on all the Scotland (Independence) 2020 bills when for the bulk of the members it is not a priority for their constituents, and in some cases will act against constituent's interest? What happens if a Scotland (Independence) 2020 bill fails to pass in Westminster? What happens in the Scottish Parliament during the post-yes-vote negotiation if a Unionist party wins control? The timescales suggest that this is a real possibility. To my mind, we don't need (and can't have) the nitty-gritty sorted before a 2014 referendum. What we need before that referendum is a constitutional framework that would allow a "Yes" vote to actually lead to that stated will of the Scottish people. We are not remotely close to that. Mind you, I don't think there's any way there is going to be a "Yes" vote in 2014, but still...
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
Leggsy posted:Nationalism =/= Racism. By your logic, any country that has ever sought independence for any reason ever was due to a fascist hatred or their parent country, there is such a thing a left-wing nationalism you know. Congratulations, you just responded to a post in which I explicitly separated fascism and nationalism by saying "So, you think all nationalists are fascists then". As for nationalism not being racism, that is broadly true. But nationalism by definition always has some element of "us against them" involved and it usually centres on race. The SNP are one of the rare cases where it doesn't, because the people they want to separate their national identity from are of identical ethnicity. However, they still attract a lot of racists because "freedom for Scotland" is easily translated to "get rid of the hated English". quote:Although I would like to see some examples of the SNP's apparent Goebbels like suppression(to keep the Nazi theme going). The SNP don't get to suppress everyone like that yet because they're not in charge of a country yet - though that doesn't mean they will do it if they get the chance, of course. If you want evidence of them oppressing their political opponents, I suggest you ask BBC Scotland for the footage of candidate speeches from the Aberdeenshire count at the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections. I don't know how well you'll be able to hear the booing of anyone not SNP who dared to speak, which got increasingly loud and frequent with each successive victory, but I assure you that's what happened. I'll agree with you on how the union campaign is escaping scrutiny to the degree sustained by the SNP; everyone should be under the same rules here. On the other hand, stringent scrutiny is only prudent when you're talking about a group who want to be given rulership of a nation of 5 million, and whose incumbent leader previously stood down from his post to avoid a fight after he ran his party £400k into debt then sacked the party treasurer for having the gall to suggest someone else should have oversight of the finances - like, the person whose job it was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
I put it to you, Jedit, that you are a British nationalist. Is this some kind of race thing for you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
^^^ You do know that the SNP will cease to exist once independence is gained right? The insinuation that a political party formed on a single issue (with its dissoloution once that issue is resolved being enshrined in the party constitution) will go on to spread terror and oppression to any non ethnic Scots is ridiculous! I don't know who is feeding you this crap but its obviously an entity with a vested interest in keeping the Scots in the Union.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
It's been posted in this thread several times that, without Scotland, the rest of the United Kingdom would be condemned to a permanent Tory government. I read an article some time ago disproving this and, while I couldn't find it, I did find this that presents the same argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
Jedit posted:If you want evidence of them oppressing their political opponents, I suggest you ask BBC Scotland for the footage of candidate speeches from the Aberdeenshire count at the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections. I don't know how well you'll be able to hear the booing of anyone not SNP who dared to speak, which got increasingly loud and frequent with each successive victory, but I assure you that's what happened. Have you ever been involved in the process of election? I've done shifts in polling stations (long day, really decent cash, don't do it if you smoke heavily, do-able on the dole - there used to be an exemption about your claim if you did this, not sure if this still applies), at the count doing the counting, and more recently doing stuff for the Returning Officer at the count. I've been to maybe a dozen counts over the various levels of government, over the years. It's not unusual to have party workers in there. To be honest that is basically the only folk who can get in, and usually they have taken a strong drink. TheHoodedClaw fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jun 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's been posted in this thread several times that, without Scotland, the rest of the United Kingdom would be condemned to a permanent Tory government. Well if you believe in democracy, then the rest of the UK would be getting the government it votes for? Would it not be better to have 2 states both more representative of their peoples values?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I read an article some time ago disproving this and, while I couldn't find it, I did find this that presents the same argument. In 1997 Tony Blair won a majority of 177 seats. in 2001 he won a majority of 167 seats; in those years Scotland had 72 parliamentary constituencies (and not all of them voted Labour). In 2005 Blair won a majority of 64 seats. In 2010, David Cameron won 305 seats, short of a majority by 21. Since 2005 Scotland has had 59 constituencies. Even without Scotland, Labour would have won majorities in 1997, 2001, and 2005 (not that that is necessarily a good thing). In 2010, Cameron would have had a majority without Scotland but it'd have been a majority of a massive 18, a slimmer majority than Major won in 1992. That's some powerful Tory hegemony, that. Jinkii posted:Why then should the Scots be be denied that which was granted to British Africa, British South-West Asia and all ex-colonies in between? Marlows posted:I'd be careful making such judgements about Scottish attitudes towards imperialism. You are prescribing an ideology on a population over a period of centuries. We have a tendency to use the past as merely examples of what is occurring in our own times (as with the Iraq example) and we miss the nuances existing in an alien time. The fact is, people in the past didn't exist as models of enlightened judgement, railing against unjust inequalities. Hack historians like Zinn, make such judgements , refusing to let his subjects speak for themselves. Ferguson, from the other side of the political spectrum is no better at this. The Darien adventure and the sale of the country to England was done for the benefit of the rich Scots. The Highland clearances and forcible removal of Scots from their ancestral lands was done for the benefit of rich Scots. The forcing, through hunger and poverty of generation after generation of poor or non-rich Scots into the service of the East India Company or the British Army where they achieved advancement, despite their background, was done for the benefit of rich Scots. These rich Scots so assimilated into the union that they ceased to see themselves as Scots and, indeed, referred to themselves as English. It's almost as if the history of all hitherto Scottish society is the history of class struggle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
TheHoodedClaw posted:[A really good post] Thanks for this. I agree that a framework for sorting this stuff out is what we can hope for, although I suspect that might need some form of legislation or MOU from Westminster since the negotiations would likely last for at least one change of UK Government. It's also helped crystallise my opinion that Scotland should vote no in the referendum. I think there's advantages of scale, as well as having more flexibility in what you can place where, and being able to share resources.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:I put it to you, Jedit, that you are a British nationalist. I'm not any kind of nationalist. I just don't jerk the knee, punch the air and shout "YAY!" whenever I hear the word "independence" spoken. If Scotland were viable as an independent nation, I would be neutral on this issue as it wouldn't matter to me whether it was independent or not. Jinkii: I never intended to insinuate that the SNP would go on a pogrom if independence was attained, just that there's a lot of SNP voters who see independence as the first step to getting rid of the European immigrants. Happily, they're not in charge. Regarding the SNP dissolution: do you think they'll dissolve if the referendum declares that Scots want to stay in the UK? They won't, because they won't consider the issue to be resolved until the answer is "Yes". And if the answer does come back "Yes", after becoming independent they'll just rebrand the Party with a new constitution. That's not a criticism; they're in that party because they share similar ideologies, and it would be nuts to break up the sitting government as soon as independence is achieved anyway. EDIT: TheHoodedClaw - yes, I have been involved in the process. I was on the count team for the 2010 General Election and the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary Election, and would have been on the team for this year's local council elections too if they hadn't computerised the count. (Which annoyed me greatly, as I quite enjoy getting a three-day weekend.) Jedit fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Jun 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Jinkii: I never intended to insinuate that the SNP would go on a pogrom if independence was attained, just that there's a lot of SNP voters who see independence as the first step to getting rid of the European immigrants. Happily, they're not in charge. If you have any evidence of this i would be pleased to see it, as i think this is projection. I have heard such views aired but its usually by non-voting unemployed types blaming Polish and Czech workers getting the jobs they wouldnt have applied for or gained anyway. A no response wouldnt result in the SNP ceasing to exist no, since that according to the Scottish National Party wouldnt be the resolution they were formed to achieve, also it wouldnt be the sitting party since a general election would be called and new parties formed, most likely along similar party lines as we have currently but not run from Westminster, which is the whole bloody point! e: more words Jinkii fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jun 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 00:51
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I'm not any kind of nationalist. I just don't jerk the knee, punch the air and shout "YAY!" whenever I hear the word "independence" spoken. If Scotland were viable as an independent nation, I would be neutral on this issue as it wouldn't matter to me whether it was independent or not. Neutrality and support of the status quo are effectively the same position. Your thinking is very unclear - Conflating the SNP with blackshirts, the errant confusion about the methodology of the evidence you've quoted (and the evidence itself), and now confusing your intentionality with a material action. I'm not sure you've thought very much on how you've come to form this opinion on nationalism even though you dress it up as a rational, neutral position from someone who says that they are not (intends not to be) a nationalist. Like, it's not coherent to say that you are not a nationalist but then explicitly support the preservation of the status quo (i.e. the UK).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
Something of a tangent here. Are Scotland's borders determined and fixed for the sake of this discussion? Could it include Cumbria and/or Northumberland, if there was sufficient popular support in those counties?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I'm not any kind of nationalist. I just don't jerk the knee, punch the air and shout "YAY!" whenever I hear the word "independence" spoken. If Scotland were viable as an independent nation, I would be neutral on this issue as it wouldn't matter to me whether it was independent or not. You certainly seem to get worked up when people talk about independence. You've been saying that the SNP is full of racists and inferring that it has a large fascist element ('literally blackshirts', indeed). While I have very little time for Salmond and his fellows, and while I know and have known several unpleasant and small-minded nationalists, that's patently absurd. You seem invested in the UK to such an extent that no label other than 'British nationalist' seems to fit (what with your talk of moving out of an independent Scotland, though you claim this would be for economic reasons); unionism is just British nationalism by another name. You do seem to see nationalism as a dirty word. This is understandable, since unionist politicians their fellow-travellers like to insinuate as much; it's not even limited to Scotland. The political establishment in general likes to pretend that nationalism only means separatist nationalism: in the popular discourse, Republicans in Northern Ireland are nationalists, but those who want to remain part of Britain are not; Basque separatists are nationalists, but those who want Euskadi to remain within Spain are not. And so on. And I know that five years ago I'd have parroted almost the same things you've been saying in this thread (right down to the 'they're a bit like HITLER eh' idiocy), but... and I don't know of any non-patronising way to say this... I grew out of it. I cringe when I look back at my younger self saying that stuff, particularly because I always knew at the back of my mind that I was being dishonest and wilfully ignoring certain facts and so on. I was really bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 01:12
|
|
|
Indeterminacy posted:Something of a tangent here. I'd certainly be more than happy to let the North of England come with us if we were leaving the Union. I very much doubt that such a thing would happen, but I do know it's a topic that's come up in pro-independence circles in the manner of a jokey far-fetched fantasy, and the general consensus whenever I've seen it come up has been that the North [of England] would be welcome to become the South [of Scotland] if they wanted to get away from the folks down in London that badly. But really, it's something that has zero chance of actually happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
Indeterminacy posted:Something of a tangent here. Yes. No. The land border has been formally set since the 1707 Act of Union and (informally) set since the 1603 union of crowns. That'd be one thing not under discussion because no-one cares. Berwick could possibly be the only bone of contention since Berwickshire is in Scotland while Berwick is England, but even then, I doubt it'd matter since it's been English since before James VI became James I. The maritime border will be far more important because: oil. Iohannes fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
For those Scots that say that all the good trained professionals will leave the country if it becomes independent, I'm an American MatSciE student who would immigrate there if it became a sovereign country 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's been posted in this thread several times that, without Scotland, the rest of the United Kingdom would be condemned to a permanent Tory government. I remember looking at an interactive infographic on the Guardian website that showed which way the constituencies of the UK voted in general elections over the years and this showed that each labour government won a majority in England as well as the UK, is this what you are thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:For those Scots that say that all the good trained professionals will leave the country if it becomes independent, I'm an American MatSciE student who would immigrate there if it became a sovereign country Seconded. I am a young American mathematics major with Scottish ancestry who would love to make a life in an independent Scotland. I will be applying for graduate school right around the time of the referendum, actually, and the prospect of a left-Scottish political discourse and dialogue is very appealing. This is not as naively idealistic as it sounds when you understand where I'm coming from. Good luck, Scots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
As a EU person, I'm interested in this: Would Scotland enter the Schengen Area? And even if not, would it institute border controls with the UK?TheHoodedClaw posted:What we need before that referendum is a constitutional framework that would allow a "Yes" vote to actually lead to that stated will of the Scottish people. We are not remotely close to that. I thought that the UK does not have a constitution as such? And that a lot of things are resolved very pragmatically, on a case-by-case basis, or because of tradition, precedent etc.? I suppose that you are right, that it all depends on the political will. If they could, obstructionists could prolong the separation for years. On the other hand, if they really wanted to, I'm sure the politicians could act quickly. In the case of the nuclear submarines you quote, the solution might be an interim treaty similar to the partition treaty between Russia and Ukraine regarding the Black Sea Fleet, etc. In the case of the international treaties, the Vienna Convention on Succession of States might serve as a guideline (even though the UK is not a party to it). Etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 07:31
|
|
|
meristem posted:As a EU person, I'm interested in this: Would Scotland enter the Schengen Area? And even if not, would it institute border controls with the UK? As for what the passport checks at the border would look like Standish fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Jun 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
John_Anon_Smith posted:Neutrality and support of the status quo are effectively the same position. Your thinking is very unclear - Conflating the SNP with blackshirts, the errant confusion about the methodology of the evidence you've quoted (and the evidence itself), and now confusing your intentionality with a material action. I'm not sure you've thought very much on how you've come to form this opinion on nationalism even though you dress it up as a rational, neutral position from someone who says that they are not (intends not to be) a nationalist. Like, it's not coherent to say that you are not a nationalist but then explicitly support the preservation of the status quo (i.e. the UK). No, indifference and outright support of the status quo are not the same. I'm neither pro-independence nor pro-union: I don't make arguments for either; even if I do have opinions on pros/cons of each. If my indifference were put into action (by not voting) I'd effectively be supporting the winning side, whichever that may be. Anyway, it's not pro status-quo or reactionary to see nationalism as a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
What's somewhat interesting about the opinion polls is that they sometimes show the English being slightly more supportive of Scottish independence than the Scots themselves.
Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jun 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
What is even more interesting is Labour and the Tories joining forces to stop independence (Ed Miliband's inability to tell the difference between an island and the union of states upon it aside of course), its almost as if there is some validity to the Scots claims over resources on or under their internationally recognised land and seabed claims.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 17:06
|
|
|
Deep Thought posted:No, indifference and outright support of the status quo are not the same. I'm neither pro-independence nor pro-union: I don't make arguments for either; even if I do have opinions on pros/cons of each. If my indifference were put into action (by not voting) I'd effectively be supporting the winning side, whichever that may be. Your argument makes total sense if you remove the context of the discussion and the topic at hand for the sake of argumentative simplicity. I was specifically addressing a particular post and not a philosophical generality. I don't see what your post has to do with somebody that supports unionism yet considers themselves not a nationalist. Nor did I imply or say what you are suggesting in your second paragraph missive. Finally, you're confusing intention (your opinion on the matter) ,object (the arguments) and action (your vote). Your intention, while forming your perception of the object at-hand does not translate to the effect that the resultant action has upon either the object at-hand or the wider context within which it's situated. There's no way to infer that what you intend your action to result in would translate to the object in question or even be communicated. This kind of problem extends itself to a lot of matters beyond the discussion at hand such as the constitution of "art" and perceptual relations between subjects and texts (and whether it even makes sense to consider the relationship outside of its apparatus of production and distribution, see: Jean Louis Baudry's examination of cinemas)
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Jinkii posted:What is even more interesting is Labour and the Tories joining forces to stop independence (Ed Miliband's inability to tell the difference between an island and the union of states upon it aside of course), its almost as if there is some validity to the Scots claims over resources on or under their internationally recognised land and seabed claims. That wouldn't explain why Labour and the Tories are also joining forces to stop the SNP controlling regional councils, sometimes including the Lib Dems too. There's no ideological basis for that move, and a lot of reasons not to do it. Either Labour or the Tories could work with the SNP to get things done on a local level, and it's not like the SNP would get any closer to independence by being able to tender out for public works in Banff. Perhaps they suspect the SNP would try to take advantage of operating the referendum vote to influence the result? That's a bit cynical, if so. Dislike and oppose the SNP though I may, I don't think they're any more militantly dishonest than any other political party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Jedit posted:That wouldn't explain why Labour and the Tories are also joining forces to stop the SNP controlling regional councils, sometimes including the Lib Dems too. There's no ideological basis for that move, and a lot of reasons not to do it. The Tories and Labour are ideologically pretty close these days, especially when unionism is thrown into the mix. Party tribalism is what has kept such coalitions from happening up to now, but with the Existential Threat Of Separatism looming the red and blue teams have heroically put aside their differences and stopped pretending that they don't endorse broadly the same policies. Also, unionism/British nationalism is an ideology. Don't pretend that it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:The Tories and Labour are ideologically pretty close these days, especially when unionism is thrown into the mix. Yeah, there's a lot of truth to that. Only the bit about unionism is wrong; there is no unionist element to keeping local councils out of SNP control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Only the bit about unionism is wrong; there is no unionist element to keeping local councils out of SNP control. Why? Why is it wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Etherwind posted:Why? Why is it wrong? I already explained why, but as I evidently wasn't clear enough: the nationalist debate is a matter for the national government. Every council in Scotland could be run by the SNP and they still wouldn't be able to leave the Union because it's not their call to make.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
Personal feelings and animosity towards the SNP don't just dissipate into the ether when the SNP aren't operating at a level where independence can be achieved. People who don't want the SNP in charge of things want to keep them out of office at every level - that's why the unionist parties have gone into coalition in councils. Because they're unionist, and the SNP are not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
John Charity Spring posted:Personal feelings and animosity towards the SNP don't just dissipate into the ether when the SNP aren't operating at a level where independence can be achieved. People who don't want the SNP in charge of things want to keep them out of office at every level - that's why the unionist parties have gone into coalition in councils. Because they're unionist, and the SNP are not. And conversely, if the SNP prove competent at running a local council, it could convince people who are agnostic about independence that the SNP would do a good job running independent Scotland as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
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. I mean, it'd be a pretty monstrous thing to grant Scotland independence one day and invade it the next, but you are dealing with Tories here. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
Jedit posted:The SNP are one of the rare cases where it doesn't, because the people they want to separate their national identity from are of identical ethnicity. 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. zero alpha fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Jun 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2012 16:56
|
|