Indyref 2: This time it's personal.

[Craig B]

Scotland is a part of Britain only by virtue of a Treaty which has been ofttimes abused by the Sovereign Parliament of the UK. Many Scots wish to rescind that treaty. That would have the effect of removing a country from the British Union. The situation as regards the English regions or the Northern Isles is quite different. The relationship between the regions and the centre in England and Scotland will be a matter for consideration after the issue of the UK is settled, but the two issues are not the same, and unionist efforts to confuse them are mischievous.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't disagree with any of that. I was only suggesting what possible scenarios there are for Scotland and UK. It should be possible to keep Scotland in EEA, but that would probably mean some sort of intranational border with England. The results would be weird, but it should be something to consider at least - I persume Westminster is keen to keep Scotland in UK, so such options must be explored, and then either accepted as possibilities or rejected as impossible. Keeping Scotland in EEA or even EU when UK leaves would be problematic, but it doesn't seem impossible.

We've seen far more bizzare arrangements in Europe, but not in the last 200 years.

McHrozni

Regardless of options May is not interested. She refused to talk to the SNP about options. She isn't interested in Scotland or what Scotland wants. Anything moved from England to Scotland is as much a loss for her as it moving to Frankfurt or Slovakia. I don't know why we repeatedly have these discussions about impossible alternatives. The choice is clear. Independence or subservience.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I know my views differ from the 'main stream'. But with the UK in the EU, I thought an independent Scotland would rapidly re-enter the EU, and with the UK being outside of the common travel area there would never be a border. I believe the issues differ with the UK leaving. An independent Scotland would have to negotiate exemptions to e.g. the Euro the common travel area otherwise Scotland would have to introduce a land border. So whilst I voted yes last time I will probably vote no in a pre-Brexit referendum. I understand why those who want independence, and believe they will win think going for a pre Brexit referendum will mean Scotland can remain in the EU. But I am not sure that such an option exists nor is good for Scotland. Most of Europe is pretty similar, independence is not going to result in Scotland becoming the California of Europe (nor even the Washington). Things will be pretty much the same. I do understand the principle of 'self determinism' being good, but there is always a limit; people here in Orkney may want self determinism, but the Scots who post here say that will never happen because Orkney is part of Scotland. If an Englishman said the same thing about Scotland being part of Britain they would be derided.

Personally I think that a pre-Brexit referendum, will leave the option for a post Brexit referendum as then the situation will have 'changed'. Anyone with statistical competency will tell you that repeating tests until you get the answer you want is a statistically dubious process. If we are practicing 'scientific' politics one needs to predefine the number of tests done, or have a mechanism to incorporate previous results such as using cusum.

I do not think that the suggestion that any referendum should be post Brexit negotiations is unreasonable.

Sorry i quite resent you misrepresenting what i have told you about Orkney. I've told you again and again that the entire thing is a manufactured myth and that the people of Orkney don't want separation from Scotland but if they want to pursue independence then that's their choice and they should elect someone on that ticket.

Your post above is dishonest.

 

[McHrozni]

Regardless of options May is not interested. She refused to talk to the SNP about options. She isn't interested in Scotland or what Scotland wants. Anything moved from England to Scotland is as much a loss for her as it moving to Frankfurt or Slovakia. I don't know why we repeatedly have these discussions about impossible alternatives. The choice is clear. Independence or subservience.

If Theresa May was faced with two possibilities, one in which Scotland remains in UK and in EEA somehow and the other tearing the UK apart, how would she choose? We can't say for certain, but having such options on the table can only be good for Scotland.

Who knows, just weighing them could push Theresa May over the edge and get her institutionalized, bringing some normality to UK. That is worth a few debates, is it not?

McHrozni

 

[Architect]

Scotland is a part of Britain only by virtue of a Treaty which has been ofttimes abused by the Sovereign Parliament of the UK. Many Scots wish to rescind that treaty. That would have the effect of removing a country from the British Union. The situation as regards the English regions or the Northern Isles is quite different. The relationship between the regions and the centre in England and Scotland will be a matter for consideration after the issue of the UK is settled, but the two issues are not the same, and unionist efforts to confuse them are mischievous.

Indeed. Whilst poster is, or at least was, in Stromness I used to work in the northern isles and beyond insisting on calling the mainland "Scotland" (to distinguish it from Mainland, Orkney) I never found that the people considered themselves anything other than Scottish.

 

[Planigale]

Sorry i quite resent you misrepresenting what i have told you about Orkney. I've told you again and again that the entire thing is a manufactured myth and that the people of Orkney don't want separation from Scotland but if they want to pursue independence then that's their choice and they should elect someone on that ticket.

Your post above is dishonest.

Well, I can only report comments from the in laws. I have no opinion poll. The view may be a minority view.
See also
http://www.orcadian.co.uk/councillors-support-calls-greater-autonomy-orkney/
But increased autonomy / devolution is being sought.

When I said something about Scots in a pub the reply was;
"We're ****** Orcadian, Scotland is across the water."

I find it interesting how emotional some posters here get about the idea that some parts of Scotland may not feel strongly 'Scottish', or may feel more 'British'. Orkney does have the lowest pro SNP vote and the highest pro UK vote in Scotland which may suggest views slightly differ from elsewhere.

 

[Planigale]

More broadly there is a question at what point can a difference in political view in one part of nation justify division? One argument I hear for independence is Scotland does not vote conservative unlike England therefore a Conservative policies are forced on Scotland. This is equally true for many inner city areas in England. Yet the conservatives are the second largest party in Scotland.

The borders vote conservative, voted against independence , should they be given an opportunity to vote to join England in the event of a pro-independence vote? Should they be dragged out of the union against their will?

Clearly some people can see Scotland as being distinct from England in some fundamental way that I cannot. I see no difference crossing from Berwick. Crossing from Dover to Calais there is a 20 mile zone vacant of population and a mutually incomprehensible language.

Getting angry or making snide comments does not make the pro independence argument stronger.

I do think that the UK needs constitutional reform, Gordon Brown is right there.

 

[Planigale]

Scotland is a part of Britain only by virtue of a Treaty which has been ofttimes abused by the Sovereign Parliament of the UK. Many Scots wish to rescind that treaty. That would have the effect of removing a country from the British Union. The situation as regards the English regions or the Northern Isles is quite different. The relationship between the regions and the centre in England and Scotland will be a matter for consideration after the issue of the UK is settled, but the two issues are not the same, and unionist efforts to confuse them are mischievous.

Scotland is part of Britain by virtue of geography, it will remain part of Britain regardless of being independent or not. It may cease to be part of the UK.

 

[Planigale]

Sorry i quite resent you misrepresenting what i have told you about Orkney. I've told you again and again that the entire thing is a manufactured myth and that the people of Orkney don't want separation from Scotland but if they want to pursue independence then that's their choice and they should elect someone on that ticket.

Your post above is dishonest.

I posted
"I do understand the principle of 'self determinism' being good, but there is always a limit; people here in Orkney may want self determinism, but the Scots who post here say that will never happen because Orkney is part of Scotland."

I have posted from the local paper;
"Last year, councillors passed a motion from Councillor Graham Sinclair considering whether Orkney could exercise self-determination if faced with further national or international constitutional changes, or decide if more autonomy might be beneficial for islanders."
http://www.orcadian.co.uk/councillors-support-calls-greater-autonomy-orkney/

Would you reconsider accusing me of dishonesty now I have referenced 'self determinism' and Orkney? This appears to be an ad hominem attack since you have provided no evidence to prove me dishonest or even misled.

 

[Craig B]

Scotland is part of Britain by virtue of geography, it will remain part of Britain regardless of being independent or not. It may cease to be part of the UK.

The UK is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". There is no reference to England or Scotland in the name of the kingdom. If Scotland leaves the U.K., that will be because it has left the bit of the UK named Great Britain. The expression Britain has both a geographical and a political meaning, and only the latter of these is relevant here, I admit.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If Theresa May was faced with two possibilities, one in which Scotland remains in UK and in EEA somehow and the other tearing the UK apart, how would she choose? We can't say for certain, but having such options on the table can only be good for Scotland.

Who knows, just weighing them could push Theresa May over the edge and get her institutionalized, bringing some normality to UK. That is worth a few debates, is it not?

McHrozni

I think her concern for Scotland extends exactly as far as her image in dealing with it. She will insist Scotland cannot do things and go down with the ship rather than give an inch.

In this regard she is beyond even Thatcher in her open contempt for Scotland although Thatcher never actually had to contend with a Scottish government.

I firmly believe the Tories would cut off their nose to spite their face when it comes to Scotland. The interesting thing for me is how the Scottish Tories have fallen into line so quickly. They can no longer even pretend to represent the Scottish people and while i doubt it will lessen their support it certainly should lessen their credibility amongst anyone with a brain.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well, I can only report comments from the in laws. I have no opinion poll. The view may be a minority view.
See also
http://www.orcadian.co.uk/councillors-support-calls-greater-autonomy-orkney/
But increased autonomy / devolution is being sought.

When I said something about Scots in a pub the reply was;
"We're ****** Orcadian, Scotland is across the water."

I find it interesting how emotional some posters here get about the idea that some parts of Scotland may not feel strongly 'Scottish', or may feel more 'British'. Orkney does have the lowest pro SNP vote and the highest pro UK vote in Scotland which may suggest views slightly differ from elsewhere.

The emotional response is to you misrepresenting my position. I support the right of Orkney to self determine but you say i don't. The reason why this particular issue raises he likes is because it's a repeated unionist canard whuch fails cursory inspection and anyone repeating it must be doing so knowing that.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

More broadly there is a question at what point can a difference in political view in one part of nation justify division? One argument I hear for independence is Scotland does not vote conservative unlike England therefore a Conservative policies are forced on Scotland. This is equally true for many inner city areas in England. Yet the conservatives are the second largest party in Scotland.

The borders vote conservative, voted against independence , should they be given an opportunity to vote to join England in the event of a pro-independence vote? Should they be dragged out of the union against their will?

Clearly some people can see Scotland as being distinct from England in some fundamental way that I cannot. I see no difference crossing from Berwick. Crossing from Dover to Calais there is a 20 mile zone vacant of population and a mutually incomprehensible language.

Getting angry or making snide comments does not make the pro independence argument stronger.

I do think that the UK needs constitutional reform, Gordon Brown is right there.

You are the only one who seems to be even close to advocating the division of a nation. Others are discussing the exiting of one nation from a union with others.

Your repeated claims that others are snide or angry are dishonest. The root of the anger is not your pro union position but your dishonesty in argument and in representing my and others opinion.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I posted
"I do understand the principle of 'self determinism' being good, but there is always a limit; people here in Orkney may want self determinism, but the Scots who post here say that will never happen because Orkney is part of Scotland."

I have posted from the local paper;
"Last year, councillors passed a motion from Councillor Graham Sinclair considering whether Orkney could exercise self-determination if faced with further national or international constitutional changes, or decide if more autonomy might be beneficial for islanders."
http://www.orcadian.co.uk/councillors-support-calls-greater-autonomy-orkney/

Would you reconsider accusing me of dishonesty now I have referenced 'self determinism' and Orkney? This appears to be an ad hominem attack since you have provided no evidence to prove me dishonest or even misled.

No I'm telling you as a Scot who posts here you are misrepresenting my position on Orkney. I support the self determination of all people's including those in Orkney. And I've told you that. And others.

If Orkney wishes to achieve independence from Scotland then they have to go through a process to achieve that. See i actually think the right to self determination is a fairly precious thing and shouldn't be bandied about as a political football by people scoring points from hypotheticals.

The simple fact is that there is no serious Orkney independence movement presently. Further autonomy is a different issue and one that is being discussed by the Scottish government.

So your attempt to paint Scots who post here as hypocrites fails.

So let's bin the Orkney red herring and discuss the topic at hand seriously. Is there a positive case for remaining in the union. I'd love to hear it. Theresa may isn't doing a great job of making it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, I can only report comments from the in laws. I have no opinion poll. The view may be a minority view.
See also
http://www.orcadian.co.uk/councillors-support-calls-greater-autonomy-orkney/
But increased autonomy / devolution is being sought.

When I said something about Scots in a pub the reply was;
"We're ****** Orcadian, Scotland is across the water."

I find it interesting how emotional some posters here get about the idea that some parts of Scotland may not feel strongly 'Scottish', or may feel more 'British'. Orkney does have the lowest pro SNP vote and the highest pro UK vote in Scotland which may suggest views slightly differ from elsewhere.

And in the pubs round here you would be told We're ****** Yorkshiremen but it doesn't mean they want an independent Yorkshire. A wall between us and Lancashire maybe but nothing more.

 

[Planigale]

I think a reasonable question is what determines that one part of a contiguous island is different from another.

How much consent to be part of that seperation is needed? No one asked any part of Scotland to be part of Scotland. However poor the consultation was there was at least some discussion about the formation of the UK.

You can take is as generic e.g. Serbia does not recognise the right of Kosovo to be a separate nation Kosovo does not recognise the right of self determination of the Serbian majority population in the North.

You can take it as relevant to Ireland where the population of Ulster chose to remain part of the UK.

How in creating new nations do we decide about the rights of that potential nations sub parts, and their right to self determination? Should all parts have an option to self determination as part of the process of forming a new nation?

One can see the same issue with Catalan independence, do all parts of catalonia want to be part of an independent Catalonia? In contrast Corsica in seeking independence as an island has a logical contiguous identity.

Is there a general rule we can apply?

Most island are single states, Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Cuba, Madagascar, or parts of a larger state e.g. Zanzibar or Rhode Island! Ireland is a historical anomaly that will probably become a single state in future. Haiti is another exception.

Great Britain as an island not being a single nation goes against the general pattern, what is the particular circumstance that makes this island exceptional? The argument that because Scotland may vote differently from the rest of the UK, only means that all places that differ should be given self determination, what is it that would make it right for A but not B to have self determination? In the next referendum if there was not a majority vote for independence why could not the central belt go independent if there was a local majority? This is what would follow from the Scotland did not vote for Brexit argument.

(This does not mean I support the status quo; I do think that there should be political change, I just seek to understand the underlying principles).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think a reasonable question is what determines that one part of a contiguous island is different from another.

How much consent to be part of that seperation is needed? No one asked any part of Scotland to be part of Scotland. However poor the consultation was there was at least some discussion about the formation of the UK.

You can take is as generic e.g. Serbia does not recognise the right of Kosovo to be a separate nation Kosovo does not recognise the right of self determination of the Serbian majority population in the North.

You can take it as relevant to Ireland where the population of Ulster chose to remain part of the UK.

How in creating new nations do we decide about the rights of that potential nations sub parts, and their right to self determination? Should all parts have an option to self determination as part of the process of forming a new nation?

One can see the same issue with Catalan independence, do all parts of catalonia want to be part of an independent Catalonia? In contrast Corsica in seeking independence as an island has a logical contiguous identity.

Is there a general rule we can apply?

Most island are single states, Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Cuba, Madagascar, or parts of a larger state e.g. Zanzibar or Rhode Island! Ireland is a historical anomaly that will probably become a single state in future. Haiti is another exception.

Great Britain as an island not being a single nation goes against the general pattern, what is the particular circumstance that makes this island exceptional? The argument that because Scotland may vote differently from the rest of the UK, only means that all places that differ should be given self determination, what is it that would make it right for A but not B to have self determination? In the next referendum if there was not a majority vote for independence why could not the central belt go independent if there was a local majority? This is what would follow from the Scotland did not vote for Brexit argument.

(This does not mean I support the status quo; I do think that there should be political change, I just seek to understand the underlying principles).

I'm really not sure where to start with this. You really seem to have a flimsy understanding of the arguments being made. Nobody is arguing that Scotland should become independent because it didn't vote for Brexit. Scotland will become independent after a majority of the nation vote for independence. Not as a side effect of any other election.

Sharing a landmass does not make two nations one. Nor does proximity. Ask France and Germany or Iran and Iraq.

I suggest you start at the un declaration on self determination to get a better understanding of the issues.

And yes self determination applies to everyone everywhere.

But please stop belittling the idea of Scottish independence with these silly hypotheticals as if it's a few fringe nutters throwing their toys out the pram because they lost a vote

 

[Planigale]

I'm really not sure where to start with this. You really seem to have a flimsy understanding of the arguments being made. Nobody is arguing that Scotland should become independent because it didn't vote for Brexit. Scotland will become independent after a majority of the nation vote for independence. Not as a side effect of any other election.

Sharing a landmass does not make two nations one. Nor does proximity. Ask France and Germany or Iran and Iraq.

I suggest you start at the un declaration on self determination to get a better understanding of the issues.

And yes self determination applies to everyone everywhere.

But please stop belittling the idea of Scottish independence with these silly hypotheticals as if it's a few fringe nutters throwing their toys out the pram because they lost a vote

Thank you.

I may have a flimsy understanding but at least I am asking questions to try and understand.

I shall look up the undeclaration of self determination. That sort of pointer is helpful.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Thank you.

I may have a flimsy understanding but at least I am asking questions to try and understand.

I shall look up the undeclaration of self determination. That sort of pointer is helpful.

I'm genuinely not trying to be confrontational but if you have been through this in 2014 I'm somewhat surprised by your arguments here three years later. Perhaps I'm being unkind to you based on an expectation of you being more engaged in the debate than you have been.

Some of us have lived our entire lives without having a state we can identify with. Something others take for granted. And it gets rather sore when people appear to be belittling that as an issue.

 

[Craig B]

How in creating new nations do we decide about the rights of that potential nations sub parts, and their right to self determination? Should all parts have an option to self determination as part of the process of forming a new nation?​

We don't need to bother our pretty heads deciding about the rights of sub parts, prior to the separation of the components of the UK, and here is the reason: we're not "creating new nations".

Scotland is an old nation, like England. Three hundred years ago they became joined together in a political union (very much against the will of most Scots, by the way). During those three hundred years the union government never thought it necessary to change the boundaries of Scotland, or split it up into parts. When there is a prospect of Scotland leaving the union, behold the unionists at that moment start to worry about the parts. This is the old tried and trusted imperialist scam called Partition.

It was perpetrated in Ireland, in India, in Palestine ... but we're wise to it. So here's what should happen. The unionists should let Scotland depart undisturbed, as long as a majority of the voters in Scotland agree to that; and then if there's any problem about parts, the independent Scottish government can deal with it. Meanwhile the rUK can get on with sorting out its own parts, undisturbed by Scottish interference. How does that sound?