Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Strawberry]

Again, total and utter ignorance of my position (and some ugly mis-assumptions thrown in for good measure). So here, once again, is my position. Please try to remember it for the future. Here goes:

Ireland had the right to leave the UK, and Scotland will have the right to leave the UK, only when the UK also deemed/deems that it is in the UK's best collective interests for those things to happen. Kapish?

Neither Ireland nor Scotland had/has the unequivocal unilateral right to leave the UK without the UK (in the form of the UK national parliament) agreeing that it was/in the best interests of the UK for that to happen. OK?

A region of a sovereign state only has the right to secede from that sovereign state if and when the collective peoples of that sovereign state (usually in the form of the legislative assembly of that state) agree that it is in the best interests of the state for that to happen. The exception to this rule is if the region seeking secession has suffered disproportionate levels of tangible discrimination and denial of democratic rights (things such as denial of, or significant restrictions upon, freedom of assembly or representation; denial of equal voting rights; disproportionate denial of state funds; deliberate and target depression of that region's economy; and so on) from the parent state. Under those circumstances, the International Court of Justice has established precedent that a region will usually be allowed, in international law, to declare independence unilaterally of the will of the parent state.

And, for the record, I personally believe it was in the best interests of the UK to grant RoI independence when it did (so, obviously, I agree with the decision of the parliament of the time - in fact I think it could and should have been done earlier), and I do not feel it is presently in the best interests of the UK to grant Scottish independence (although my opinion on that might very well change as circumstances change - that's the way reasoned analysis in a changing world tends to work). If, however, the UK parliament (acting on behalf of me and every other UK citizen) believed tomorrow that it was in the UK's best interests to grant Scotland the right to independence from the UK, I would have total support for that decision, regardless of whether or not it clashes with my own personal assessment and opinion. Because, again, that's how representative democracy works.

By all means though, continue to create a straw man of my position. Everyone else here is. I guess it's fun and fulfilling to build up something extreme to attack. Go for it!

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State, and we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades in arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.

The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman."

Ireland has, and always did have, a fundamental right to its own nationhood regardless of what international law said and regardless of what British colonialists stole off them by brute force and cruelty. I'd expect the Irish side of your family to know that, although they sadly haven't passed that knowledge on to you.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why should these revelations confound anyone? Here is the national self identification made by people in England in the 2011 Census.

English identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was the most common identity respondents chose to associate with, at 37.6 million people (67.1 per cent). English as a sole identity (not combined with other identities), was chosen by 32.4 million people (57.7 per cent).
British identity (either on its own or combined with other identities) was a common identity chosen by 16.3 million people (29.1 per cent). 10.7 million people (19.1 per cent) associated themselves with a British identity only)​

So you're in a clear minority, but not an insignificant one.

Er...... my pointing out of my parental heritage, by self-described nationality/regionality, and my residential status, were in no way intended to indicate whether or not I was in any sort of minority in the UK or anything like that.

It was to highlight the fatuous, blinkered, mistaken leap to assumptions by so many "learned" contributors to this thread that my position on Scottish independence somehow identified me as, variously, "English", "a pal of Tories", an "Empire lover" and other such descriptors. And, just for the record, I happen to be none of those three things. Funny, huh?!

 

[LondonJohn]

Again trying to maintain a dispassionate, objective, calm analysis of reality, countries have invaded, colonised and absorbed other countries, regions and peoples since pretty much the year dot. Fortunately in the 21st century we have reasonably robust international law which has established reasonable rules as to what is and what is not allowable in law. And those countries that were invaded, colonised or absorbed against their will should - and do - have the right to secede under certain conditions and if their peoples desire it. Which is one of the many reasons why Ireland correctly became independent. And why pretty much every one of the UK's former colonies has gained independence. And why Australia in turn has granted quasi-nation-status to Aboriginal peoples. And why the US and Canada in turn have granted quasi-nation rights to First Nation native Americans. And why France no longer runs Algeria, nor the Netherlands Indonesia. But I must have missed the part where the UK colonised Scotland......

Interestingly enough, my "ancestors" on the Irish side came via my maternal grandparents, who came from a Catholic family in the centre of RoI and a Catholic family in Belfast in NI, respectively. Both my grandparents moved to the UK (to the midlands of England, as it happens) to live and work, and they met there in the UK. Both had friends and extended families of differing religions and from differing UK regions, and while both of them felt that the situation in the island of Ireland would be better for all in the long run if it were a single nation state open to all, neither of them had the slightest respect or regard for extreme nationalism (nor, obviously, unionism).

 

[Giz]

The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman."

You're a disgrace to your ancestors.

Are you seriously saying that LondonJohn must give his allegiance to the Irish Republic due to his ancestry? What is "Blut und boden" in the original Irish?

 

[Strawberry]

What the hell are you going on about? Calm down! What possible basis have you for calling me "a disgrace to my ancestors?".

Did you even read the part in my post where I noted my opinion (dispassionately, unlike this rant of yours) that Ireland would, IMO, have been justified under international law in making its unilateral declaration of independence? And that, therefore, by extension, I am in personal support of Ireland's decision to declare UDI in 1919?

Take a few minutes before launching such nasty invective next time, and try to get it right before you do. OK?

ETA: it looks like I had edited my post while you were in the process of responding to it. Even so, my original post still stands in its entirety - I had already pointed out the international rationale for accepting UDI. My edit only made it explicitly clear that I thought the Irish Declaration of Independence in 1919 met the criteria for UDI.

All right, I've edited my post in light of the edit to yours.

 

[Strawberry]

Are you seriously saying that LondonJohn must give his allegiance to the Irish Republic due to his ancestry? What is "Blut und boden" in the original Irish?

No, silly! The part in quote marks is an excerpt from the Proclamation of the Irish Republic.

 

[Giz]

No, silly! The part in quote marks is an excerpt from the Proclamation of the Irish Republic.

Perhaps you can clarify then, in what way is he a disgrace to his ancestors?

 

[Strawberry]

Perhaps you can clarify then, in what way is he a disgrace to his ancestors?

No, I've moderated that position since he moderated his. Any person of Irish parentage who seriously asserts that Ireland had no right to leave the UK without Britain's permission would be a disgrace to their ancestors though.

 

[LondonJohn]

All right, I've edited my post in light of the edit to yours.

OK. Thanks.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The same mechanism could be used to eject an undesirable part of your country - though it would mean changing your country's name.

For example, if Scots decide they don't like the Isle of Mull, then they could set up a referendum for every Scot except those living on Mull to vote for independence. If a majority voted in favour then, by your reasoning, they could form a new country leaving Mull as the only remnant of Scotland.

No because it wouldnt be a national referendum if Mull was excluded and the Scottish government would be acting undemocratically in doing so.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It truly amazes me the hackles that the mere idea of scotland expressing its democratic right to independence raises amongst a certain type of Englishman. You wonder what motivates them to demand against all evident facts that scotland isnt a country that we are all bigots that we dont deserve the right to self determination that its England who will decide what we are entitled to and even to obhect to our national anthem while all the time sneering and condescending and still beyond all sense of irony insisting that they occupy the moral high ground.

And this is somehow supposed to make us more endeared to the union or convince us that we are welcomed partners or make us think twice about distancing ourselves from these fellow citizens??

If it was Jews Muslims or homosexuals spojen about in such terms then the classification of such people and such opinions would be obvious.

 

[Giz]

It truly amazes me the hackles that the mere idea of scotland expressing its democratic right to independence raises amongst a certain type of Englishman. You wonder what motivates them to demand against all evident facts that scotland isnt a country that we are all bigots that we dont deserve the right to self determination that its England who will decide what we are entitled to and even to obhect to our national anthem while all the time sneering and condescending and still beyond all sense of irony insisting that they occupy the moral high ground.

And this is somehow supposed to make us more endeared to the union or convince us that we are welcomed partners or make us think twice about distancing ourselves from these fellow citizens??

Do you think that saying “a certain type of Englishman” makes that post less bigoted?

And you do have a problematic ‘national’ anthem. The correct response would be to amend it, not double down on the xenophobia.

If it was Jews Muslims or homosexuals spojen about in such terms then the classification of such people and such opinions would be obvious.

Yeah, you wouldn't talk about those groups the way you do about Englishmen.


There is a whole lot of adversarial projection going on from the nationalists here.

 

[ceptimus]

No because it wouldnt be a national referendum if Mull was excluded and the Scottish government would be acting undemocratically in doing so.

But you said that (hypothetically) Shetland or Glasgow could hold a referendum. Make up your mind.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Do you think that saying “a certain type of Englishman” makes that post less bigoted?

And you do have a problematic ‘national’ anthem. The correct response would be to amend it, not double down on the xenophobia.



Yeah, you wouldn't talk about those groups the way you do about Englishmen.


There is a whole lot of adversarial projection going on from the nationalists here.

And here is one to make my point for me.

Its reminiscent of the way evangelical christians feel the need to deny homosexuals their rights because somehow they feel that their equality is depriving them of something. They need to keep them in their place because somehow they are defined by their misplaced sense of superiority and feel damaged or harmed by not being able to control and define them on their terms.

And they genuinely feel that they are in the right and bleat about being the victims because a minority challenges their worldview instead of knowing their place.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But you said that (hypothetically) Shetland or Glasgow could hold a referendum. Make up your mind.

Not one held by the scottish parliament. It would have to be held by their own relevant authority. And there is no everyone but mull authority.

Here we seem to have the yeah what next marrying goats?approach of throwing up silly hypotheticals to prove nothing

 

[Strawberry]

It truly amazes me the hackles that the mere idea of scotland expressing its democratic right to independence raises amongst a certain type of Englishman. You wonder what motivates them to demand against all evident facts that scotland isnt a country that we are all bigots that we dont deserve the right to self determination that its England who will decide what we are entitled to and even to obhect to our national anthem while all the time sneering and condescending and still beyond all sense of irony insisting that they occupy the moral high ground.

And this is somehow supposed to make us more endeared to the union or convince us that we are welcomed partners or make us think twice about distancing ourselves from these fellow citizens??

If it was Jews Muslims or homosexuals spojen about in such terms then the classification of such people and such opinions would be obvious.

Its pure arrogance, that's the only word for it. The mentality of entitlement over others that could prompt someone to lecture the Scots, (or indeed the English, Welsh or Irish), that they're not really a country is beyond belief.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Youd also think that these constitutional experts might get one fact right in anything they post. They might even google what the official national anthem of scotland even is. You know just to pretend that they have a basis in reality.

 

[ceptimus]

Not one held by the scottish parliament. It would have to be held by their own relevant authority. And there is no everyone but mull authority.

Here we seem to have the yeah what next marrying goats?approach of throwing up silly hypotheticals to prove nothing

Well, I think you started it, and I admitted from the outset that I'm only positing a hypothetical situation to show the error of your position.

If it's okay for the Glasgow Local Authority to hold a referendum, and okay for Edinburgh to do the same, then there's nothing to stop them both holding a referendum and agreeing between themselves that if both areas vote to leave they will then join together to form the new independent nation of Gasgowandedinburgh.

And then by extension you can rope in as many local authorities as you wish up to and including the extreme and unrealistic position where you've got everyone except residents of Mull voting to leave.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well, I think you started it, and I admitted from the outset that I'm only positing a hypothetical situation to show the error of your position.

If it's okay for the Glasgow Local Authority to hold a referendum, and okay for Edinburgh to do the same, then there's nothing to stop them both holding a referendum and agreeing between themselves that if both areas vote to leave they will then join together to form the new independent nation of Gasgowandedinburgh.

And then by extension you can rope in as many local authorities as you wish up to and including the extreme and unrealistic position where you've got everyone except residents of Mull voting to leave.

Sorry whats the error of my position? Could you clarify?

If Scotland wanted rid of Mull there are far easier ways to achieve that goal.

 

[Craig B]

Well, I think you started it, and I admitted from the outset that I'm only positing a hypothetical situation to show the error of your position.

If it's okay for the Glasgow Local Authority to hold a referendum, and okay for Edinburgh to do the same, then there's nothing to stop them both holding a referendum and agreeing between themselves that if both areas vote to leave they will then join together to form the new independent nation of Gasgowandedinburgh.

And then by extension you can rope in as many local authorities as you wish up to and including the extreme and unrealistic position where you've got everyone except residents of Mull voting to leave.

And yet the Unionists don't say anything like that about Scottish identity. Do they think it in their heart of hearts but are simply too cowardly to say so in public? What is your view? Here is the sort of thing the Unionists do in fact say.

The Vow was a joint statement by the leaders of the three main unionist parties, David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, promising more powers for Scotland in the event of a No vote. Included in The Vow was that in the event of a No vote:

The Scottish parliament would be permanent
Extensive new devolved powers would be delivered
The Barnett formula for funding Scottish Government expenditure would continue
The Vow was published in the Daily Record, one of the main tabloid newspapers in Scotland that also backed a No vote in the referendum. The explanation and background to the publication of The Vow was explained in the Daily Record itself one year after the referendum when it outlined that following a poll showing the 'Yes' side ahead, it was felt that firm promises of more powers were required from the 'No' side.​