Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

LondonJohn said:
Your "club" analogy is dreadfully wrong and inappropriate here (although, ironically, it's a fairly good analogy for the EU).
Click to expand...
It is good for both.
A far more apposite and appropriate analogy for regions wanting to separate from a sovereign state is the one I've used before: a company, where one particular operating unit of the business wishes to demerge from the company.
Click to expand...
No it's not
Even people of low intellect can understand ...
Click to expand...
Can they, indeed? Good for them!
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Well go to another thread and discuss regions wanting to separate from a sovereign state then. This one is about a nation wanting to separate from a union.
Click to expand...


NO. IT. IS. NOT. For the zillionth time.

Just because England and Scotland signed the Act of Union all those hundreds of years ago, that makes not one jot of difference to the constitutional makeup of the UK in the 21st century. Not a jot.

Just as when A Ltd and B Ltd signed a merger agreement in 2005, to become The United AB Company Ltd. In 2016, there is no "A" or "B" any more, save for the fact that they are both business units of The United AB Company Ltd. The people who work in the factory where B was formerly based have zero right to say something along the lines of: "Well, we only formed a union with you in 2005, so now in 2016 we retain the total right to "dissolve that union" and split off from The United AB Company Ltd. The board and shareholders of The United AB Company Ltd don't have any say in the matter."
 
Strawberry said:
Obtuse, naive, anglocentric, that's what drips from your posts. I really can't take you seriously on the subject of anything to do with Scotland at all.

As for anyone who doubts that Scottish nationalists get demonised in the UK media, are you blind? Alex Salmond was dangled in front of the English as a threat at the last general election by the Tory press, as in "if you vote Labour, they'll form an alliance with this monster." I've never even seen Gerry Adams get portrayed as so dangerous. It seems to have worked too, the Tories won.
Click to expand...


Um. Some Scottish Nationalist leaders "getting demonised in the UK media" is a very, very different kettle of fish from the "(Scottish nationalists) get demonised and walked over" of your original contention - which a) implied all Scottish Nationalists, b) did not narrow down this alleged demonisation to "the UK media", and c) mentioned the rather sinister "walked over" - which would imply they were being "walked over" by some authority with an element of power over them. Shame on you for the goalpost shift.

And you don't think that certain Westminster politicians get demonised in the Scottish Nationalist press? Who was it that was mentioning the word "naive".....?
 
Anyway, enough of this pointless tomfoolery. As Darat has no doubt already discovered, there's not much point trying to draw a decent picture on a plate of jelly.

Bidh mi 'gad fhaicinn!
 
LondonJohn said:
Um. Some Scottish Nationalist leaders "getting demonised in the UK media" is a very, very different kettle of fish from the "(Scottish nationalists) get demonised and walked over" of your original contention - which a) implied all Scottish Nationalists, b) did not narrow down this alleged demonisation to "the UK media", and c) mentioned the rather sinister "walked over" - which would imply they were being "walked over" by some authority with an element of power over them. Shame on you for the goalpost shift.

And you don't think that certain Westminster politicians get demonised in the Scottish Nationalist press? Who was it that was mentioning the word "naive".....?
Click to expand...

What Scottish Nationalist press? Every mainstream media outlet in Scotland supports the Union.
 
LondonJohn said:
NO. IT. IS. NOT. For the zillionth time.
Click to expand...

Yes, aren't you tired of repeating the same falsehood? Your call to international law went away quickly I notice...

Just because England and Scotland signed the Act of Union all those hundreds of years ago, that makes not one jot of difference to the constitutional makeup of the UK in the 21st century. Not a jot.
Click to expand...

Nor does any of this make Scotland not a country when the very constitutional makeup you refer to calls Scotland a nation and defines Holyrood as a national parliament.

Just as when A Ltd and B Ltd signed a merger agreement in 2005, to become The United AB Company Ltd. In 2016, there is no "A" or "B" any more, save for the fact that they are both business units of The United AB Company Ltd. The people who work in the factory where B was formerly based have zero right to say something along the lines of: "Well, we only formed a union with you in 2005, so now in 2016 we retain the total right to "dissolve that union" and split off from The United AB Company Ltd. The board and shareholders of The United AB Company Ltd don't have any say in the matter."
Click to expand...

We're talking about nations not companies. Not your colonial fantasies nor your insistence on facts countered by the very bodies you claim to be referencing.

For a final say on the matter of Scottish independence I will refer to Daniel Bethlehem QC, Legal Advisor to the FCO in representation to the ICJ: "Courts do not order estranged spouses to continue in a broken marriage."
 
Strawberry said:
Its similar to the attitude of an abusive husband who doesn't think his wife should be allowed to leave the house without his permission, and who belittles her at every turn in the hope that she will lose the confidence to stand up to him.
Click to expand...
Yeah, an interesting comparison.
 
LondonJohn said:
<gibber snip>
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand the difference between 'country' and 'nation'.
Luckily the UK's Office for National Statistics does:

The Countries of the UK
The top-level division of administrative geography in the UK is the 4 countries – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
So you would deny the people of Scotland independence if they want it and England and Wales don't? You can't have it both ways. If not then you are going to have to explain what you actually mean.
Click to expand...
Don't know how much clearer I can be, given the constitution we currently have if the last Indyref had said "yes" then of course the population of Scotland should have been able to form their own new country.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
So you would deny the people of Scotland independence if they want it and England and Wales don't? You can't have it both ways. If not then you are going to have to explain what you actually mean.
Click to expand...
Would you deny the people of Edinburgh and Glasgow Independence from the rest of Scotland, independence if they want it? Irrespective of your answer I can assume you would understand the concern from the residents of Cumnock at such at outcome and the effect on their lives. That is similar to denying the residents of England a vote.

From my personal point of view I am against dividing the world into smaller parts and oppose the break up of nations. I think decision making needs to be at the right level to recognise different regional needs and am thus in favour of delegation of powers from the centre. I am patriotic but I find the recent rise in nationalism and demonising of foreigners distasteful and I want to see it stopped. "Independence", in my view, focuses on the difference between people not the similarity and it will fuel the culture of us and them.
 
Darat said:
... the constitution we currently have if the last Indyref had said "yes" then of course the population of Scotland should have been able to form their own new country.
Click to expand...
And what, pray is that constitution we have? Recall Theresa May as quoted in the Telegraph
Mrs May said that after Brexit the UK will be “a fully-independent, sovereign country” that will no longer be in the “jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”, suggesting that Britain is preparing to leave the single market.​
Following Brexit the U.K. Will become "independent", "sovereign".

These are not minor changes. The Scottish electorate evidently voted to remain within a subservient subordinate country, which is about to change utterly, according to no less than the head of government. So where is the constitution we said "yes" to?
 
Craig B said:
And what, pray is that constitution we have? Recall Theresa May as quoted in the Telegraph
Mrs May said that after Brexit the UK will be “a fully-independent, sovereign country” that will no longer be in the “jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”, suggesting that Britain is preparing to leave the single market.​
Following Brexit the U.K. Will become "independent", "sovereign".

These are not minor changes. The Scottish electorate evidently voted to remain within a subservient subordinate country, which is about to change utterly, according to no less than the head of government. So where is the constitution we said "yes" to?
Click to expand...
So did the London electorate. I dare say streets or estates in your constituency voted for a candidate who did not get elected. You need to understand the the vote was for the UK to remain or leave not for houses, streets, towns, islands, cities, counties or countries to remain or stay. There are elections and votes all the time. You really should understand how they work.
 
Darat said:
Don't know how much clearer I can be, given the constitution we currently have if the last Indyref had said "yes" then of course the population of Scotland should have been able to form their own new country.
Click to expand...

Im trying to get to the bottom of the democratic deficit you are complaining about because it seems that you are simultaneously rying to say that Scotland should decide but England should get to decide too.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Im trying to get to the bottom of the democratic deficit you are complaining about because it seems that you are simultaneously rying to say that Scotland should decide but England should get to decide too.
Click to expand...
I think he is saying that it is clearly possible under the current laws we has for the residents of a region to be allowed to vote for independence however given and split in the country will have an effect on the people in the leaving and remaining parts, he would prefer a situation where all people are consulted.
 
Lothian said:
Would you deny the people of Edinburgh and Glasgow Independence from the rest of Scotland, independence if they want it? Irrespective of your answer I can assume you would understand the concern from the residents of Cumnock at such at outcome and the effect on their lives. That is similar to denying the residents of England a vote.

From my personal point of view I am against dividing the world into smaller parts and oppose the break up of nations. I think decision making needs to be at the right level to recognise different regional needs and am thus in favour of delegation of powers from the centre. I am patriotic but I find the recent rise in nationalism and demonising of foreigners distasteful and I want to see it stopped. "Independence", in my view, focuses on the difference between people not the similarity and it will fuel the culture of us and them.
Click to expand...

If Glasgow wants independence then so be it. That's a pointless hypothetical though. The one that is usually raised is shetland and its the same answer. If they go through a proper process then yes. Its their decision to make.

Its no more for England to decide what Scotland does than it was for Serbia to decide the fate of Kosovo.

I want to see the demonizing of foreigners stopped too and disconnecting from a government and people engaging in it seems like a positive step for the world. We don't need to tack our fate onto an isolationist and xenophobic uk simply because of history.
 
Lothian said:
I think he is saying that it is clearly possible under the current laws we has for the residents of a region to be allowed to vote for independence however given and split in the country will have an effect on the people in the leaving and remaining parts, he would prefer a situation where all people are consulted.
Click to expand...

Doesnt really make things clearer. What does consulted mean? Is it like Scotland will be consulted on Brexit?

Clearly england woukd have been consulted during independence negotiations. But they dont get a veto.
 
Not prepared to engage in any more debate here, but remarking in passing that the rabid "England vs Scotland" rhetoric is still front and centre for the nationalists here (and, indeed, many of the more vocal, extreme nationalists in general). Perhaps if/when they came to realise it's nothing whatsoever to do with "England" vs Scotland, and instead everything to do with The United Kingdom and Scotland's position in the UK, they might realise just how distasteful and vindictive (and, noticeably, anti-English) so much of their rhetoric is. Of course, it's a fanciful suggestion that they will ever come to see this, of course, otherwise they'd have seen it long ago.

O Flower of Scotland,
When will we see
Your like again,
That fought and died for,
Your wee bit Hill and Glen,
And stood against him,
Proud Edward's Army,
And sent him homeward,
Tae think again.


(And before the zealots go: "Oh but the National Anthem has a bit about crushing rebellious Scots! Nee nar nee nar!", I'd point out that a) that bit is in an appended verse that was last used in the 18th century, b) virtually nobody in the entire UK (save for some fervent Scots Nats, obviously) even knows that verse ever existed, c) the National Anthem is the national anthem of the whole of the United Kingdom, and d) it (that verse) is (obviously) not sung with relish and passion by entire football/rugby stadiums of national fans on a regular basis (.....unlike the words of the first verse of Flower of Scotland reproduced above, which contain explicit joyous references to defeating the (then-English) king in battle). Interesting, huh?!)

As ye were :)
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Then they would have ten times as many votes and could deny Scotland independence. Which was earlier denied as what was being suggested.
Click to expand...
I will let Darat clarify his comments. Of course a majority of the population deciding the outcome for a minority is not uncommon. MSPs from the whole of the Scotland decided to scrap the Skye Bridge toll. Congestion charges tend to be decided by the City rather than the congestion area.
The UK parliament will decide whether to expand Heathrow not the immediate neighbours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom