Referendum on Scottish Independence

[Madalch]

Then you would still be a British subject.

Nope. She would be the Queen of Scotland separately from her role as Queen of Canada, Australia, etc.

Canadians aren't British subjects, even if we are subjects of the same Queen as the Brits.

 

[dudalb]

May I ask why? I'm genuinely curious; as a Yank, I find the idea of wanting to secede from the UK but retaining the Queen as being kind of weird. (But then, to me, wanting a royal head of state at all is rather foreign.)

Actually, that was the way it was from 1603 to 1707.Scotland and England had the same monarch but otherwise were independent of each other. The Scots had their own parliament and legal system,and the English Parliament and courts had no jurisdiction. The act of Union Merged the two governments.

 

[Fiona]

In your view is the UK a country? If it isn't how does it fail the test for being considered a country?

Difficult question . How would you define a country?

Let us suggest that a country must have:
1. Defined borders. Check
2. A settled population. Check
3. A sense of common national identity. Nope
4. The right to regulate such things as law and education over the whole of the territory. Nope
5. The right to regulate economic activity. Check
6. Control of transport across the whole country. Nope
7. Control of the police force across the whole territory. Nope
8. International recognition. Check
9. The right to provide public service across the whole territory. Sort of.

I do not know what criteria you would prefer to adopt: those are a few. By this measure several empires would qualify as "a country" at some periods of their existence: yet that is not generally accepted and few now feel that eg Indian independence was wrong because it abolished a country

Why? It is accurate - it is also how I would describe England in terms of the country we both live in today (or Wales and so on).

How is it arrogant?

You are not alone in failing to understand this Darat, and it is difficult to explain it to you if you do not get it. First, I notice that you say you refer to england as a region. Is this really true? I do not mean to impugn anything bad to you but I honestly never hear anyone do that except in the context of this type of discussion. It is like saying "chips and fish". I do hear talk of the "english regions" and that should give you the clue: because in the way the language is ordinarily used is the clue to what we really think. So if you do refer to england as a region and not a country would you accept you are very unusual? I can quite see that when you are bending your mind to the issue you might do so as a matter of logic: but I honestly doubt that it is ingrained so that it is how you and your circle commonly refer to you country. I may be wrong

I am not wrong in saying that Scots do not refer to scotland as a region of the uk, even when they are dyed in the wool unionists. It is not how scots perceive themselves and it simply is not true.

How am I being romantic - all the international courts, international organisations such as the UN and so on recognise that the UK is a country, are they being "romantic" as well?

No they are not being romantic: they recognise a union of countries which constitutes a state. The reason I say you are being romantic is because you are constructing a fantasy. You are proposing that the history of the last 300 years has, by virtue of the passage of time (or for some other reason), made one country out of several. That has not happened and it really does not matter whether you believe it would have been desirable. In a real sense a country is what the people who constitute it conceive it to be: and Scots are Scots. They have never not been Scots: not legally; not emotionally; and not practically

Let me come back to the question of the english regions. It is my view that many of the northern counties of england should consider joining an independent Scotland. Their economies are more similar to ours and in practical terms it follows that since I believe separation will be good for Scotland I think it would also benefit Tyneside and Cumbria etc. I am not a nationalist, as it happens: my own conclusions on this issue are practical. But I put it to you that even if the case for a different border were overwhelming in practical terms that border would not be redrawn: because the people who live in the north of england are english: they are not scots and they are not british: they see themselves as english and there is an end of it.

However it is romanticism to make claims that call back to a state that has not existed for 300 years ago as a bases for a "return to self-determination", especially when what you want is certainly not a return to the country Scotland was prior to the act of union.{/quote]

I do not understand this part. I want self determination because I think the union is bad for this country. The constitution as it applies to Scotland is quite clear: the basis for it is the treaty of union. That treaty no longer serves our turn, IMO and so it makes sense to continue with it. If a majority of Scots agree then the treaty ends: if not it doesn't. I really don't see how that is romantic: nor do I see it as a "return to the country Scotland was before the treaty". Scotland never went away so I do not catch your drift

I am also a strong supporter of a more federated UK, and I have long thought that the UK has, for much too long, been too centralised on a small part of the south east of just one its regions.

We agree: but it is too late

 

[Fiona]

Actually, that was the way it was from 1603 to 1707.Scotland and England had the same monarch but otherwise were independent of each other. The Scots had their own parliament and legal system,and the English Parliament and courts had no jurisdiction. The act of Union Merged the two governments.

The legal system is guaranteed independence in the Treaty of Union. That has never changed

 

[funk de fino]

Again your denial of reality does not alter the facts - for a new country called "Scotland" to come into existence our country, the UK, will have to end.

Scotland already exists, existed previously and will always exist. The UK is a union not a country.

My "bias"? What on earth?

yes, your bias.

I am assuming that you don't want Scotland to return to what is was prior to the Union so stating that you want it to "return" as you did is romanticism.

I want it to return to being an independant nation. Stop blithering.

As I said your denial of reality does not alter the facts.

Neither does yours.

No idea what a "Britboy" is.

Nice handwave.

When will I, according to your plans, get to vote on the future of our country?

It is a vote on the future of my country which is Scotland, the reefeerendum is about the country called Scotland. If you want a vote on it then move here. Britain and the UK does not have to have Scotland as part of it. You can carry on using your silly names and descriptions for non existent countries as long as you want. We do not mind.

I am not "making crap up" - do you really think that the Tories didn't think the "poll tax" was a better system?

It was better for the rich of southern england, not the majority of Scots and they knew it. Eventually when the Englissh cryed aabout it too te realsied they could ot fool everyone. They fooled you apparently though.

 

[funk de fino]

Sorry but this is romanticism - you are talking about an act that created a new country/state/nation 300 years ago, the original "parties" to that agreement have long since died, and I don't just mean the principles, I mean the actual states that combined. (Granted the state that was created has gained and lost a few bits and pieces in those 300 years.)

Lets deal with what we actually have today. Which is a nation/state, the UK, in which all the citizenship has representation, that does still have constituent regions, some of which we still call "countries", and each of those regions retains some residue of their past "independence".

People who want Scottish independence, for whatever reason, want to create a country called Scotland that has never previously existed, in other words a new country and to do so they will have to end a country that has existed for 300 years.

Complete bollox. I would give a more reasoned and inltelligent response but it does not deserve one.

 

[funk de fino]

They don't. Nor do they want a vote.

According to one poll they may not but according to others they do.

 

[funk de fino]

I've had this argument with Darat before. I agree with Fiona, but there's no point in re-hashing old ground. We disagree, and I've given up trying to explain to him why he's wrong.


I'm not a fan, I have to say, but I see your point about the utility of a powerless figurehead as a head of state. (On the other hand, I think it's pretty rough on whoever gets landed with the job - the present Queen has been by and large exemplary, but what a waste of a life! And what do you do if the incumbent is a trouble-maker, or mentally deranged? Come to that, what about Chuck and the homoeopathy stuff?)

Oh, and I wouldn't hold up Jamie the Saxt as an example of anything - he was the main cause of Scotland being sold down the river in the 17th century.

I just see it as a pointless distraction. Let's achieve independence, and then decide what we want to do with the monarchy. I've got no time for people like Ian Bell who insist that although they strongly desire independence they won't vote for it unless the terms are exactly as they wish - republicanism in his case.

First things first.

Rolfe.

I'm no fan of Oor Jimmy even though I am a Stewart. I have no problem with the monarchy however and see them as the least of my concerns. Certainly less than being governed by Mr Cameron.

 

[funk de fino]

Then you would still be a British subject.

Ha ha. Are you going for the record today?

Better not tell those Canadians.

 

[funk de fino]

I can see a good reason to oppose (as illegitimate) a partial referendum.

Go on then. Show it to be illegitimate.

 

[Francesca R]

A referendum only for people in Scotland about breaking up the UK would be as illegitimate as only asking people over 50 or who owned more than £500,000 in assets, or who were female. Void and meaningless.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Ha ha. Are you going for the record today?

What record? Mistake.

I resent the animosity shown toward the south when these matters come along. It's not like any of the founders of the Union are alive anymore, nor do most Mrs Blogs and Mr Ahmeds in England care that much about retaining control of Scotland. According to the polls, it doesn't seem like most Scots care either. I don't understand people who say they are 'proud' to be something or other. I'm honoured to live close to Shakespeare, for instance, but this pride thing escapes me. It's like someone saying they are 'proud' to be white or black or whatever.

Here's an idea, how about a referendum for one country? Scongland.

 

[funk de fino]

A referendum only for people in Scotland about breaking up the UK would be as illegitimate as only asking people over 50 or who owned more than £500,000 in assets, or who were female. Void and meaningless.

Its not about breaking anything. Its about returning to something.

It is a referendum set out by the govt of a country about the future of that country. If England want one I would be quite happy for them to have it and would not want to stick my nose into other affairs.

Many non Scots would also be voting in the referendum.

Please show me the source that would prove to me it is illegitimate?

 

[Cynic]

A referendum only for people in Scotland about breaking up the UK would be as illegitimate as only asking people over 50 or who owned more than £500,000 in assets, or who were female. Void and meaningless.

Was the American civil war illegitimate because the South didn't get the North's vote first? Was the revolutionary war illegitimate because we didn't get King George's sign off? You'll note those were both wars, because one region wanted to do something the other parts didn't agree with -- and tried to stop it. As is the nature of independence and self-determination, it is precisely these sorts of disagreements that define them as a group in the first place. Suggesting that a group trying to decide if it wants to leave your union or not isn't going about it legitimately because they failed to consult the opposition doesn't make any sense.

 

[Darat]

Difficult question . How would you define a country?

Let us suggest that a country must have:
1. Defined borders. Check
2. A settled population. Check
3. A sense of common national identity. Nope
4. The right to regulate such things as law and education over the whole of the territory. Nope
5. The right to regulate economic activity. Check
6. Control of transport across the whole country. Nope
7. Control of the police force across the whole territory. Nope
8. International recognition. Check
9. The right to provide public service across the whole territory. Sort of.

I do not know what criteria you would prefer to adopt: those are a few. By this measure several empires would qualify as "a country" at some periods of their existence: yet that is not generally accepted and few now feel that eg Indian independence was wrong because it abolished a country

Well I was asking you how you define a country.

You are not alone in failing to understand this Darat, and it is difficult to explain it to you if you do not get it. First, I notice that you say you refer to england as a region. Is this really true? I do not mean to impugn anything bad to you but I honestly never hear anyone do that except in the context of this type of discussion.

...snip...

It is not something that usually comes up apart from in discussion like this so it's not surprising that you don't hear it much but absolutely I do consider England as a region in the sense I use it for Wales or Scotland or any other the bits and pieces that make up the UK.

It is like saying "chips and fish". I do hear talk of the "english regions" and that should give you the clue: because in the way the language is ordinarily used is the clue to what we really think.
...snip..

And I also hear "Scottish regions" being used.

So if you do refer to england as a region and not a country would you accept you are very unusual?

I can quite see that when you are bending your mind to the issue you might do so as a matter of logic: but I honestly doubt that it is ingrained so that it is how you and your circle commonly refer to you country. I may be wrong

...snip..

You are slightly misrepresenting what I said, which was "...snip... that does still have constituent regions, some of which we still call "countries"..."

No they are not being romantic: they recognise a union of countries which constitutes a state. The reason I say you are being romantic is because you are constructing a fantasy. You are proposing that the history of the last 300 years has, by virtue of the passage of time (or for some other reason), made one country out of several. That has not happened and it really does not matter whether you believe it would have been desirable. In a real sense a country is what the people who constitute it conceive it to be: and Scots are Scots. They have never not been Scots: not legally; not emotionally; and not practically

...snip...

That you do not consider the UK a country is to me just a flat out denial of reality.

Let me come back to the question of the english regions. It is my view that many of the northern counties of england should consider joining an independent Scotland.
...snip...

Well it is something that I have suggested in the past, but it is not what is usually discussed in these threads about Scotitsh independence and indeed in the latest SNP white paper they are quite clear that the English are not welcome in their new nation!

Their economies are more similar to ours ...snip...

There is also the argument that the counties of Norhumberland and Cumberland are historically/culturally intermeshed with Lowland Scotland. Perhaps even more so that the Highlands and Lowlands are! (That is said in jest but I think there is some truth in it._

and in practical terms it follows that since I believe separation will be good for Scotland I think it would also benefit Tyneside and Cumbria etc. I am not a nationalist, as it happens: my own conclusions on this issue are practical. But I put it to you that even if the case for a different border were overwhelming in practical terms that border would not be redrawn: because the people who live in the north of england are english: they are not scots and they are not british: they see themselves as english and there is an end of it.

Yet most people I know consider themselves British and their "regional" heritage - whether that be Scottish, Welsh, English or Yorkshire.

...snip....


We agree: but it is too late

Why?

 

[Fiona]

A referendum only for people in Scotland about breaking up the UK would be as illegitimate as only asking people over 50 or who owned more than £500,000 in assets, or who were female. Void and meaningless.

What is the legal foundation for your opinion?

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, that was the way it was from 1603 to 1707.Scotland and England had the same monarch but otherwise were [nominally] independent of each other.

And a bloody disaster that was! Let's not go there again.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

yes, your bias.

...snip...

I am always willing to examine my bias but if you won't tell me what you think it is it is quite hard to do so.

So what "bias" are you referring to?

...snip...

I want it to return to being an independant nation. Stop blithering.

...snip...

No you don't - you want to create a new independent nation.

...snip...

It is a vote on the future of my country which is Scotland, the reefeerendum is about the country called Scotland. If you want a vote on it then move here. Britain and the UK does not have to have Scotland as part of it. You can carry on using your silly names and descriptions for non existent countries as long as you want. We do not mind.

...snip...

Your bigotry is showing, first with the lame attempt of insulting me by calling me a "Britboy" and now with your "us" and "them" separation, so I am not interested in discussing this issue with you as bigotry is rarely amendable to discussion. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[funk de fino]

What record? Mistake.

I resent the animosity shown toward the south when these matters come along. It's not like any of the founders of the Union are alive anymore, nor do most Mrs Blogs and Mr Ahmeds in England care that much about retaining control of Scotland. According to the polls, it doesn't seem like most Scots care either. I don't understand people who say they are 'proud' to be something or other. I'm honoured to live close to Shakespeare, for instance, but this pride thing escapes me. It's like someone saying they are 'proud' to be white or black or whatever.

Here's an idea, how about a referendum for one country? Scongland.

I have animosity towards people in Scotland, who represent parties run from down south, who oppose the referendum. Not because they are representing their constituents but because they are toeing the party line from Westminster.

I served in the UK forces. I do not want independence because I hate the English. The polls over the last year have all had majorities wanting a vote. One recent poll puts it even'sh. To be told for years that you and your fellow countrymen are not capable of looking after ourselves is galling. I have recently been told by a brummie that we should be grateful to have been paart of the reflected glory from being associated with the English for all these years.

Why not hoist Salmond on his own petard? What are they scared of?

 

[funk de fino]

I am always willing to examine my bias but if you won't tell me what you think it is it is quite hard to do so.

So what "bias" are you referring to?

You seem to have a bias about why Scots may want independance.

No you don't - you want to create a new independent nation.

Wrong. An existing nation that is independent. As it was previously.

Your bigotry is showing, first with the lame attempt of insulting me by calling me a "Britboy" and now with your "us" and "them" separation, so I am not interested in discussing this issue with you as bigotry is rarely amendable to discussion. Feel free to have the last word.

Last resort tactics eh? I am very far from a bigot and it seems the chip on your shoulder about nationalists is rooted as much in bigotry as anything I say. The Britboy was a throwaway. You are English. I am Scottish. You are them and I am us. I do not dislike you because you (or anyone) are one of them. I do not discriminate against you (or anyone) because you are English. If a Scot was making the ridiculous arguments you were making I would be scoffing at them also. You are my brother but not my keeper.

My people are different than yours. Not better or worse but different. If my people want to have self rule then it is none of your business. If yours want self rule then it is none of my business. Bigotry is about intolerance based on a specific thing. Please tell me what that specific reason is that makes me a bigot here?