Split Thread Scottish Independence

[Rolfe]

Your response seems to suggest that it is "soft" issues like identity that really matter here rather than "hard" issues like resources and the economy.

When I hear poetic reifications like that, I tend to side with martu, although not quite so stridently. Nationalism has a very strong component of irrationality to it.

Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we emphasise the economic advantages of independence, we're damned as greedy and selfish. For example the civil servant who dealt with SNP enquiries following the discovery of North Sea oil in the 1970s. ""They smelt money [....] as greedy as sin they were [....] the only thing that fuelled nationalism was the smell of oil, money and oil." This about a party which was formed in the 1930s from the merger of two even older parties, and which was winning parliamentary seats before oil was even thought about.

Of course it's not just about oil, its about managing one's own resources for one's own benefit, whether these resources be oil or renewable energy or fishing or whisky or farming or tourism or indeed anything at all. Nevertheless, any argument which shows Scotland would do this better with independence is met by the retort that this would be greedy and selfish, to want to benefit at the expense of citizens of England. (At the moment, of course, the boot is on the other foot, but apparently we should want to stay in the present disadvantageous arrangement to allow the south-east of England to go on profiting disproportionately at our expense.)

Fiona has pointed out that although areas in the north of England are also disadvantaged compared to the south-east, they show no desire for independence. The reason is fairly simple - they self-identify as English. They are not a politically distinct country which was independent until the 18th century, and which united with England by way of a treaty which preserved many of the institutions of the independent country (and which can be revoked, come to that).

Which of course brings up the question of the "irrationality" of nationalism. Call it irrational if you like. So is love, or beauty, or sorrow. "Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who never to himself has said, this is my own, my native land?" If it was just a question of wanting the economic advantages outlined above, I'd have emigrated to Norway decades ago. But Norway isn't home.

I have some respect for martu, because he seems genuinely to have no desire to claim or promote English or British nationality - or so it seems, anyway. He appears to regard any attempt to advance English or British interests (say within the EU) as just as "ugly" as any other form of nationalism.

However, it always seems odd to me when people who actively stand up for and promote the interests of England or Britain over other nations, simultaneously denigrate and belittle those who see their country as Scotland, and who want the same advantages for her as other small independent countries enjoy. It seems to come back to, it's OK if you're Ireland or Denmark or Slovakia or Estonia.

Just not if you're Scotland.

Rolfe.

 

[funk de fino]

Not me personally. But thank you for proving my point, rather then show any intrest in engaging the rest of the UK you're quite content to unilaterally declare that the majority of your fellow citizens don't matter and have no say in the future of our country.
We're willing to listen but you have decreed we're not worthy of being talked to, just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore us. It's a fairly childish attitude, that you think founding a newly independant Scotland on such an attitude would be a good first step is pretty pathetic and/or depressing.

If it concerned you then I would be happy to talk about it. The self determination for Scots is no issue for the English, Welsh or Northern Irish citizens to get in a tizzie about. My fellow citizens are those who live in Scotland regardless of their nationality. They are all that matter here.

 

[D'rok]

Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we emphasise the economic advantages of independence, we're damned as greedy and selfish. For example the civil servant who dealt with SNP enquiries following the discovery of North Sea oil in the 1970s. ""They smelt money [....] as greedy as sin they were [....] the only thing that fuelled nationalism was the smell of oil, money and oil." This about a party which was formed in the 1930s from the merger of two even older parties, and which was winning parliamentary seats before oil was even thought about.

Of course it's not just about oil, its about managing one's own resources for one's own benefit, whether these resources be oil or renewable energy or fishing or whisky or farming or tourism or indeed anything at all. Nevertheless, any argument which shows Scotland would do this better with independence is met by the retort that this would be greedy and selfish, to want to benefit at the expense of citizens of England. (At the moment, of course, the boot is on the other foot, but apparently we should want to stay in the present disadvantageous arrangement to allow the south-east of England to go on profiting disproportionately at our expense.)

Fiona has pointed out that although areas in the north of England are also disadvantaged compared to the south-east, they show no desire for independence. The reason is fairly simple - they self-identify as English. They are not a politically distinct country which was independent until the 18th century, and which united with England by way of a treaty which preserved many of the institutions of the independent country (and which can be revoked, come to that).

Which of course brings up the question of the "irrationality" of nationalism. Call it irrational if you like. So is love, or beauty, or sorrow. "Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who never to himself has said, this is my own, my native land?" If it was just a question of wanting the economic advantages outlined above, I'd have emigrated to Norway decades ago. But Norway isn't home.

I have some respect for martu, because he seems genuinely to have no desire to claim or promote English or British nationality - or so it seems, anyway. He appears to regard any attempt to advance English or British interests (say within the EU) as just as "ugly" as any other form of nationalism.

However, it always seems odd to me when people who actively stand up for and promote the interests of England or Britain over other nations, simultaneously denigrate and belittle those who see their country as Scotland, and who want the same advantages for her as other small independent countries enjoy. It seems to come back to, it's OK if you're Ireland or Denmark or Slovakia or Estonia.

Just not if you're Scotland.

Rolfe.

I'm sure you're very oppressed and it's all terribly unjust.

To those of us who dislike nationalism, we dislike it from England and Estonia too. And perhaps the worst kind of nationalism is ethnocentric nationalism. Unfortunately, that is likely here to stay. The conflation of ethnicity and the state is nearly as bad as the conflation of religion and the state, but it seems to be a fact of the current human condition. I hope for progress, but I'm not that hopeful.

 

[Rolfe]

No, we're not "very oppressed" in the grand scheme of things. And it's difficult to call it unjust when people have a free vote and choose to continue with the situation. That doesn't mean it's not legitimate to campaign for a change, or to seek to persuade people that choosing differently is a good idea.

I just get very fed up with people who are sitting pretty in their own constitutional settlement criticising the motives and ethics and even the existence of groups who would merely like to have the same advantages for themselves. Canadians, for example, who would probably have apoplexy if presented with a situation where they were subsumed into the USA and had all their decisions taken for them in Washington....

Rolfe.

 

[D'rok]

No, we're not "very oppressed" in the grand scheme of things. And it's difficult to call it unjust when people have a free vote and choose to continue with the situation. That doesn't mean it's not legitimate to campaign for a change, or to seek to persuade people that choosing differently is a good idea.

I just get very fed up with people who are sitting pretty in their own constitutional settlement criticising the motives and ethics and even the existence of groups who would merely like to have the same advantages for themselves.

Rolfe.

You dismissed the advantages of our constitutional settlement when I suggested them, convinced that the Westminster government would do you wrong no matter what. We get the same sort of rhetoric from our separatists too. For you, c'est une affaire de la coeur, and no compromise is possible. So be it. That isn't the world I want to live in. At least you aren't resorting to violence.

 

[Rolfe]

If you're talking about the status of Quebec within Canada, I didn't dismiss that by any means. Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually said.

You suggested that we'd get on better if we abandoned support for independence in favour of supporting a federal settlement. I said that it was a poor bargaining strategy to enter negotiations by putting forward the very minimum one might accept as one's starting position. At present, everything the SNP has gained has been by way of concessions to try to buy off the continuing call for independence. Seems to be working quite well to me.

My own opinion is that Britain is a poor candidate for federalism because of the very large variation in size of the home countries. In addition, federalism tends to rely on dealing in good faith, which is not something I'm inclined to assume supporters of the union are likely to do - see the circumstances surrounding the McCrone Report iin the early 1970s for example.

Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible, indeed likely, that the route to independence will be by way of a much more federalised settlement. If indeed that turns out to be to everybody's liking, then there's always the possibility of stopping right there.

I note also that you quoted my post before the edit I made - which was done within just over a minute of posting it. Would you care to comment regarding the perspective outlined in that extra sentence?

Rolfe.

 

[D'rok]

If you're talking about the status of Quebec within Canada, I didn't dismiss that by any means. Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually said.

No. I'm talking about federalism. That's related to Quebec's status, but it is our constitutional order, generally.

You suggested that we'd get on better if we abandoned support for independence in favour of supporting a federal settlement. I said that it was a poor bargaining strategy to enter negotiations by putting forward the very minimum one might accept as one's starting position. At present, everything the SNP has gained has been by way of concessions to try to buy off the continuing call for independence. Seems to be working quite well to me.

And I suggested that an entrenched position on your part is likely to entrench your opposition at some point. Although, in my view, the gradual and democratic road to independence is definitely the best strategy however you choose to deploy it. So I don't fault that approach broadly speaking.

My own opinion is that Britain is a poor candidate for federalism because of the very large variation in size of the home countries.

OK, that's just silly, and has to be a result of living on such a small island. Consider this:

Quebec: 1,542,056 km²Ontario: 1,076,395 km²Prince Edward Island: 5,683 km²
Or this:

Texas: 696,241 km²Rhode Island:4,002 km²

In addition, federalism tends to rely on dealing in good faith, which is not something I'm inclined to assume supporters of the union are likely to do - see the circumstances surrounding the McCrone Report iin the early 1970s for example.

Entrenchment again.

Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible, indeed likely, that the route to independence will be by way of a much more federalised settlement. If indeed that turns out to be to everybody's liking, then there's always the possibility of stopping right there.

I note also that you quoted my post before the edit I made - which was done within just over a minute of posting it. Would you care to comment regarding the perspective outlined in that extra sentence?

Rolfe.

Of course Canadians are not immune to nationalism. (Did you watch any of the Winter Olympics. Yikes). But comparing Canada in North America to Scotland in the UK is ridiculous. We already are a continent-spanning union of semi-independent states. Same as the USA. Personally, I would be in favour of an EU style political union of all the Americas.

 

[Rolfe]

No. I'm talking about federalism. That's related to Quebec's status, but it is our constitutional order, generally.

And I suggested that an entrenched position on your part is likely to entrench your opposition at some point. Although, in my view, the gradual and democratic road to independence is definitely the best strategy however you choose to deploy it. So I don't fault that approach broadly speaking.

I don't think you can know much about the history of Scottish nationalism when you talk so glibly about "entrenched position".

OK, that's just silly, and has to be a result of living on such a small island. Consider this:

Quebec: 1,542,056 km²Ontario: 1,076,395 km²Prince Edward Island: 5,683 km²
Or this:

Texas: 696,241 km²Rhode Island:4,002 km²
Entrenchment again.

Well, you see, everything's relative. In Europe, states are generally a lot smaller in geographical area than in the New World. I don't demand that you arrange yourself by our standards, you could accord us the same courtesy.

Denmark 43094 km²Switzerland 41285 km²Belgium 30528 km²Estonia 45228 km²The Netherlands 41526 km²
and I haven't even included the real tinies here.

Scotland 78222 km²
However, I was of course not referring to geographical area, because those who oppose Scottish independence invariably refer to population.

England about 50 million
Scotland about 5 million
Wales about 3 million
Northern Ireland about 1.7 million

I realise of course that your post was intending at least partly to address the wide variation part. Indeed, such variations can be seen in successful federations. However, the situation where one single partner has 90% of the population with the other partners all much smaller is not in my view conducive to either stability or fair dealing.

Of course Canadians are not immune to nationalism. (Did you watch any of the Winter Olympics. Yikes). But comparing Canada in North America to Scotland in the UK is ridiculous. We already are a continent-spanning union of semi-independent states. Same as the USA. Personally, I would be in favour of an EU style political union of all the Americas.

Indeed, the aversion to a parallel where your nation might be subsumed into a larger and more aggressive neighbour seems clear. I gather it was the Canadians who originally coined the term "in bed with an elephant", which has been used quite extensively in Scottish nationalist discussion.

Indeed, what you favour ("an EU style political union of all the Americas") is remarkably similar to what Scottish nationalists favour. An EU style political union of the countries of Europe, but with Scotland simply having the advantage of being one of these countries.

Rolfe.

 

[D'rok]

I don't think you can know much about the history of Scottish nationalism when you talk so glibly about "entrenched position".

I know next to nothing about Scottish history, so I can't really comment other than generally. Entrenched positions lead to gridlock, generally. It doesn't matter if there are historic injustices that drive the entrenchment or not, the result is usually the same.

Well, you see, everything's relative. In Europe, states are generally a lot smaller in geographical area than in the New World. I don't demand that you arrange yourself by our standards, you could accord us the same courtesy.

Denmark 43094 km²Switzerland 41285 km²Belgium 30528 km²Estonia 45228 km²The Netherlands 41526 km²
and I haven't even included the real tinies here.

Scotland 78222 km²
However, I was of course not referring to geographical area, because those who oppose Scottish independence invariably refer to population.

England about 50 million
Scotland about 5 million
Wales about 3 million
Northern Ireland about 1.7 million

I realise of course that your post was intending at least partly to address the wide variation part. Indeed, such variations can be seen in successful federations. However, the situation where one single partner has 90% of the population with the other partners all much smaller is not in my view conducive to either stability or fair dealing.

Ontario: 13,150,000
Quebec: 7,780,000
Prince Edward Island: 140,000

Neither population nor geography is a legitimate barrier to a successful federation. You simply write safeguards into the constitutional order, such as deviations from strict representation by population, and division of powers such that the sub-states get a substantial slice of the power pie and can self-determine to a large degree within the federation.

Indeed, the aversion to a parallel where your nation might be subsumed into a larger and more aggressive neighbour seems clear. I gather it was the Canadians who originally coined the term "in bed with an elephant", which has been used quite extensively in Scottish nationalist discussion.

Indeed, what you favour ("an EU style political union of all the Americas") is remarkably similar to what Scottish nationalists favour. An EU style political union of the countries of Europe, but with Scotland simply having the advantage of being one of these countries.

Rolfe.

Missed the point entirely. Canada already is the EU. So is the USA. If the UK becomes federal, it will, to a much smaller degree, be so too.

 

[Rolfe]

I know next to nothing about Scottish history, so I can't really comment other than generally. Entrenched positions lead to gridlock, generally. It doesn't matter if there are historic injustices that drive the entrenchment or not, the result is usually the same.

The stigma of "entrenched position" can be attached to more than one side in most disputes.

To repeat, Scotland has achieved a great deal and made significant advances along the road to self-determination, coming from a position of desiring full independence. I fail to see how this could have been bettered, or could be bettered at present, by declaring that federation was or is the ultimate goal. I'd hardly describe the institution of a devolved Scottish parliament in 1999 as "gridlock", by anybody's standards. Especially adding to that the first-ever SNP government coming in 2007.

An important point to bear in mind is that federalism has to be achieved as a multilateral settlement. No one region can demand federated status. Scotland can, however, achieve independence unilaterally. Like it or not, this is the practical position. If the SNP's posiiton was that we would never contemplate a complete dissolution of the union, but please grant us federated status, how far do you think we'd get?

In contrast, the appreciation of the fact that Scotland can declare independence has concentrated unionist minds quite wonderfully to figure out how to stop this. Some of that has taken the form of lies and scaremongering. But on the other hand some of that has taken the form of a devolved parliament. How gridlocked is that?

Ontario: 13,150,000
Quebec: 7,780,000
Prince Edward Island: 140,000

Neither population nor geography is a legitimate barrier to a successful federation. You simply write safeguards into the constitutional order, such as deviations from strict representation by population, and division of powers such that the sub-states get a substantial slice of the power pie and can self-determine to a large degree within the federation.

It would be very interesting to see the reaction if Scotland were ever offered such a settlement. I think the chance of that ever happening is in the "snowball in hell" category, though. What motivation has the nation with 90% of the population to grant such a concession to the smaller entities? None, essentially. And great de-motivation, in the probable reaction of its own regions to such a move.

The only thing likely to concentrate minds towards such an end is the alternative possibility that Scotland might in fact simply dissolve the Treaty of Union and declare independence. The very weapon you declare should be put beyond use.

Missed the point entirely. Canada already is the EU. So is the USA. If the UK becomes federal, it will, to a much smaller degree, be so too.

As I said, chance would be a fine thing. It's unlikely to happen, however if it did, it's likely to happen because the alternative is dissolution of the UK - not because Scotland said, pretty please, can we have federated status.

And you also miss a couple of points. One is that if I understand it correctly, the status enjoyed by Quebec has come about at least in part because of an well-supported independence movement. And two, leaving aside matters of scale which we understand differ between Europe and the New World, would you really be content with a situation where Canada was subsumed into the USA in an incorporating union, and governed from Washington?

Rolfe.

 

[martu]

Yes, I doubt you'll see it too, because it won't happen. The basic philosophies of the two parties are diametrically opposed.

Rolfe.

The basic philosophies of both parties are that some people are different to me. Do you disagree?

 

[D'rok]

The stigma of "entrenched position" can be attached to more than one side in most disputes.

True enough. I imagine there is a lot of English inertia to overcome in this process.

To repeat, Scotland has achieved a great deal and made significant advances along the road to self-determination, coming from a position of desiring full independence. I fail to see how this could have been bettered, or could be bettered at present, by declaring that federation was or is the ultimate goal. I'd hardly describe the institution of a devolved Scottish parliament in 1999 as "gridlock", by anybody's standards. Especially adding to that the first-ever SNP government coming in 2007.

You may well be correct. I don't have enough specific knowledge to really evaluate the situation.

An important point to bear in mind is that federalism has to be achieved as a multilateral settlement. No one region can demand federated status. Scotland can, however, achieve independence unilaterally. Like it or not, this is the practical position. If the SNP's posiiton was that we would never contemplate a complete dissolution of the union, but please grant us federated status, how far do you think we'd get?

In contrast, the appreciation of the fact that Scotland can declare independence has concentrated unionist minds quite wonderfully to figure out how to stop this. Some of that has taken the form of lies and scaremongering. But on the other hand some of that has taken the form of a devolved parliament. How gridlocked is that?

As above, you may be right. In fact, my first post in this thread was a suggestion that you hold a referendum on independence and then bring the result (assuming it is favourable) to the bargaining table. It's much easier to be magnanimous from a position of strength.

It would be very interesting to see the reaction if Scotland were ever offered such a settlement. I think the chance of that ever happening is in the "snowball in hell" category, though. What motivation has the nation with 90% of the population to grant such a concession to the smaller entities? None, essentially. And great de-motivation, in the probable reaction of its own regions to such a move.

I concede that it is probably much more difficult to get that sort of constitutional order without starting with it. That was the advantage we had over here - we could craft our own solution based in part on avoiding the historical mistakes of the home countries. (And in Canada, we also made a conscious decision to avoid the violent revolutionary solution - the American revolution created Canada almost as much as it created the USA).

The only thing likely to concentrate minds towards such an end is the alternative possibility that Scotland might in fact simply dissolve the Treaty of Union and declare independence. The very weapon you declare should be put beyond use.

I think you will find that unilateral declaration of independence is not that simple. There really is more at stake than just Scotland. It likely won't be seen as a legitimate option by anyone but yourselves. We aren't talking about former soviet republics here. You do actually have a higher standard of legitimacy that you need to adhere to.

As I said, chance would be a fine thing. It's unlikely to happen, however if it did, it's likely to happen because the alternative is dissolution of the UK - not because Scotland said, pretty please, can we have federated status.

And you also miss a couple of points. One is that if I understand it correctly, the status enjoyed by Quebec has come about at least in part because of an well-supported independence movement. And two, leaving aside matters of scale which we understand differ between Europe and the New World, would you really be content with a situation where Canada was subsumed into the USA in an incorporating union, and governed from Washington?

Rolfe.

Quebec's status (separate legal system, Catholic church, etc) is historic. So are many of the concessions it got at confederation, such as guaranteed representation in the Senate. The independence movement, such as it is, is recent. It is an illustration that even relatively reasonable terms of union are not satisfactory when ethnic nationalism is at play. I fully expect the borders of Canada to change in my lifetime.

I would not be content with a unitary state governed from Washington. I do not expect you to be content with a unitary state governed from London. But there are alternatives. That has been my fundamental point.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, of course there are alternatives! That's exactly what we're discussing.

I point out that coming from the position of an independence movement has achieved no small gains on the self-determination front, and that continuing to bargain from that position is, I believe, our best chance of achieving further advances.

Your position seems to be that we'd achieve more if we disavowed any intention of seeking independence and campaigned explicitly for federated status within the UK. I'm inclined to disagree with you, both from experience of what has happened so far, and from what I know of bargaining positions in general.

With respect, your opinion on the legitimacy of a unilateral decleration of independence by Scotland is not really important. This point has been conceded by just about everyone and every body that matters, and recent precedent within Europe makes it practically impossible to deny independence to a country which has democratically voted for it. The SNP has had MEPs for many years now, and they haven't been entirely idle. There is a remarkable reserve of goodwill towards Scotland within Europe and the EU.

Rolfe.

 

[D'rok]

I don't expect to convince you of any perspective but the one that you hold dear. But I appreciate your ability to discuss it without rancour. That, in itself, is progress, I think, on both sides.

 

[martu]

Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we emphasise the economic advantages of independence, we're damned as greedy and selfish. For example the civil servant who dealt with SNP enquiries following the discovery of North Sea oil in the 1970s. ""They smelt money [....] as greedy as sin they were [....] the only thing that fuelled nationalism was the smell of oil, money and oil." This about a party which was formed in the 1930s from the merger of two even older parties, and which was winning parliamentary seats before oil was even thought about.

Of course it's not just about oil, its about managing one's own resources for one's own benefit, whether these resources be oil or renewable energy or fishing or whisky or farming or tourism or indeed anything at all. Nevertheless, any argument which shows Scotland would do this better with independence is met by the retort that this would be greedy and selfish, to want to benefit at the expense of citizens of England. (At the moment, of course, the boot is on the other foot, but apparently we should want to stay in the present disadvantageous arrangement to allow the south-east of England to go on profiting disproportionately at our expense.)

Why would you be happy to share your resources with someone you hadn’t met just because they were born in Dumfries as opposed to someone born in Newcastle? What’s wrong with the person born in Newcastle? I admit we can’t share everything with everyone (yet) but I am talking about two people born a few miles apart.

Fiona has pointed out that although areas in the north of England are also disadvantaged compared to the south-east, they show no desire for independence. The reason is fairly simple - they self-identify as English. They are not a politically distinct country which was independent until the 18th century, and which united with England by way of a treaty which preserved many of the institutions of the independent country (and which can be revoked, come to that).

Which of course brings up the question of the "irrationality" of nationalism. Call it irrational if you like. So is love, or beauty, or sorrow. "Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who never to himself has said, this is my own, my native land?" If it was just a question of wanting the economic advantages outlined above, I'd have emigrated to Norway decades ago. But Norway isn't home.

Love, beauty and sorrow are good for poetry, not government. Like nationalism.

Home is where your family is and the location doesn’t matter, homes are made by people not geography.

I have some respect for martu, because he seems genuinely to have no desire to claim or promote English or British nationality - or so it seems, anyway. He appears to regard any attempt to advance English or British interests (say within the EU) as just as "ugly" as any other form of nationalism.

However, it always seems odd to me when people who actively stand up for and promote the interests of England or Britain over other nations, simultaneously denigrate and belittle those who see their country as Scotland, and who want the same advantages for her as other small independent countries enjoy. It seems to come back to, it's OK if you're Ireland or Denmark or Slovakia or Estonia.

Just not if you're Scotland.

Rolfe.

Why did you write ‘or so it seems’?

 

[Rolfe]

I don't expect to convince you of any perspective but the one that you hold dear. But I appreciate your ability to discuss it without rancour. That, in itself, is progress, I think, on both sides.

My perspective is that the threat of secession is an excellent bargaining chip. I think this is supported by both past experience of this very situation, and what we know of the logic of negotiation.

I don't know why you don't understand that, but so be it.

I also don't much appreciate the accusation that I have in the past been rancorous in this discussion. I always endeavour to be civil and rational, and if you can indeed find examples of me losing my cool, I suspect this was a response to significant provocation.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Why would you be happy to share your resources with someone you hadn’t met just because they were born in Dumfries as opposed to someone born in Newcastle? What’s wrong with the person born in Newcastle? I admit we can’t share everything with everyone (yet) but I am talking about two people born a few miles apart.

I think you know the answer to that, even if you feel none of the same emotions yourself. I know I'm not the only person who screams and shouts and cheers when passing that road sign that says "Welcome to Scotland", rather than waiting for the one that names the village, or my own front gate.

What makes Gretna different from Carlisle? You could ask the blacksmith....

Love, beauty and sorrow are good for poetry, not government. Like nationalism.

Home is where your family is and the location doesn’t matter, homes are made by people not geography.

I'm not arguing with your contention that you feel none of the emotions we have been discussing, but I think you have probably discussed them often enough to understand that they exist.

Why did you write ‘or so it seems’?

Because I didn't recall you saying so in words of one syllable, I was merely inferring it from the totality of your writing on the subject.

Rolfe.

 

[D'rok]

My perspective is that the threat of secession is an excellent bargaining chip. I think this is supported by both past experience of this very situation, and what we know of the logic of negotiation.

I don't know why you don't understand that, but so be it.

I also don't much appreciate the accusation that I have in the past been rancorous in this discussion. I always endeavour to be civil and rational, and if you can indeed find examples of me losing my cool, I suspect this was a response to significant provocation.

Rolfe.

Whoa there. Not accusing you of anything here. Speaking generally of negotiated independence over violent independence. I think your behaviour here exemplifies how these things should be handled "out there".

Also, please re-read my posts (especially the first one) for the several times in which a suggested a strategy for using secession as a bargaining chip.

 

[Delscottio]

Is there any fear amongst Scots that Edinburgh will just replace London in all the complaints of Government?

I've always seen and thought of Edinburgh as a one off place within Scotland - totally different to the likes of Glasgow etc.

I have a feeling 10 years down the road the bigger more profitable areas within Scotland will be viewed pretty much the same as the South East of England. In fact down the road both sides of the argument will more than likely be "meh", not that much will actually change. Just my honest opinion of course.

Anyway I say let the Scots go, if anything it'll add some more options for us that are relatively close to the place. Two differing economies to exploit and compete in.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I don't actually think you'll find it THAT easy to seperate unilaterally.