IndyRef tomorrow - no ballot paper yet?

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

6 hours ago, TheScarf said:

Wanting Scotland to be governed by England is absolute weirdo behavour tbh.

It is, but that doesn't happen anyway.

[TheScarf]

1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

It is, but that doesn't happen anyway.

Yes it does. 

[Donathan]

1 hour ago, TheScarf said:

Yes it does. 

Scotland is no more governed by England than Quebec is governed by Ontario or South Dakota is governed by Texas or Inverness is governed by Glasgow.

 

The UK governs itself as a whole. When you’ve got one particular part of the UK making up over 80% of the population, it’s natural that they’d have the most influence. But “England” isn’t a single homogeneous group. Attitudes in Liverpool are very different to those in Yorkshire, for example.
 

Ultimately in the context of the UK, Scotland gets the same influence than any other part of the country that has a roughly 5.5m population. This isn’t and shouldn’t be controversial and is exactly how government works everywhere in the world. 

[lichtgilphead]

1 hour ago, Donathan said:

Ultimately in the context of the UK, Scotland gets the same influence than any other part of the country that has a roughly 5.5m population. 

My recollection is that Westminster Labour, Tory & LibDem MP's always follow party lines when whipped. Can you provide an example of any occasion when they all voted on geographic lines instead?

As a example, I note that both Scottish Labour MP's bravely abstained on the recent vote to allow employment rights to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. One can only assume that they feel that it is preferable to leave employment rights in the hands of the Tories rather than to devolve these rights on a geographic basis.

That's just one shameful instance. Please provide similar instances to support your view.

[renton]

12 hours ago, Donathan said:

Scotland is no more governed by England than Quebec is governed by Ontario or South Dakota is governed by Texas or Inverness is governed by Glasgow.

 

The UK governs itself as a whole. When you’ve got one particular part of the UK making up over 80% of the population, it’s natural that they’d have the most influence. But “England” isn’t a single homogeneous group. Attitudes in Liverpool are very different to those in Yorkshire, for example.
 

Ultimately in the context of the UK, Scotland gets the same influence than any other part of the country that has a roughly 5.5m population. This isn’t and shouldn’t be controversial and is exactly how government works everywhere in the world. 

Shorne of all historical and cultural context, that'd make sense. If you are a believer that the UK is a true unitary state, a mere amalgamatuin of it's WM constituencies, that'd make sense.

However, if you take the view that Scotland exists as a nation in it's own right, that England exists as a nation in it's own right - then the whole exercise collapses.

Whatever the legal pre-amble associated with the Act of Union in creating one state, the actual clauses within did everything it could to sustain the seperate national feeling. Maintaining a seperate church, education system and legal system pretty much covered the important facets of civil life and meant there was never going to be any significant integration of the seperate peoples into one Great British People. Hell, even the flag was designed as a union of Scotland and England rather than a new flag signifying a new nation (and indeed for the first 100 years or so after Union, the flag when flown in Scotand was reversed, with the saltire on top of the English cross)

For most of the existence of the Union, Scotland was run at arms length by a variety of Scottish lords via various patronages, seen as a junior partner in Empire - but as a partner nontheless: Together, but seperate. Not as part of the British homogeneous whole.

The fact that Scotland and England organised themsleves as seperate sports teams over time, rather than stopping and saying "hang on, were all British, this doesnt make sense" is a testimony to the fact that the different nations have always been alive within the Union.

It's really only in the last century, where thr popular franchise has come into being that there has been increasing pressure as the power has invested in the Commons and hence in England's constituencies. England has all the population and hence all the power. Not an unfair deal, but not a good one for Scotland.

The fact that Scotland re-established a parliament that covers the historical boundaries of Scotland shows that Scotland the nation exists apart from the English nation or the British state. From a simple point of view of delivery of services, devolution wouldnt necessarily have covered Scotland but would possibly have sub divided it further. 

So aye, there is a simple legal fact that each constituency has as much sway as any other. Yet we cannot avoid the historical context that Scotland has continued to exist as a nation but within the modern British state is disenfranchised through the imbalance inherent in populations.

Either Scotland is a nation, with it's own priorities, issues and demands that needs to be dealt with at the national level. Or it isnt, and "Scotland" is an anarchoristic term vaguely covering a collection of constituencies with no greater claim than any other in the British state. I think history proves the former, but it's the popular Uniost half way house between those two positions that must eventually resolve into one or the other.

Edited October 19, 2023 by renton

[Donathan]

1 minute ago, renton said:

Shorne of all historical and cultural context, that'd make sense. If you are a believer that the UK is a true unitary state, a mere amalgamatuin of it's WM constituencies, that'd make sense.

However, if you take the view that Scotland exists as a nation in it's own right, that England exists as a nation in it's own right - then the whole exercise collapses.

Whatever the legal pre-amble associated with the Act of Union in creating one state, the actual clauses within did everything it could to sustain the seperate national feeling. Maintaining a seperate church, education system and legal system pretty much covered the important facets of civil life and meant there was never going to be any significant integration of the seperate peoples into one Great British People. Hell, even the flag was designed as a union of Scotland and England rather than a new flag signifying a new nation (and indeed for the first 100 years or so after Union, the flag when flown in Scotand was reversed, with the saltire on top of the English cross)

For most of the existence of the Union, Scotland was run at arms length by a variety of Scottish lords via various patronages, seen as a junior partner in Empire - but as a partner nontheless: Together, but seperate. Not as part of the British homogeneous whole.

The fact that Scotland and England organised themsleves as seperate sports teams over time, rather than stopping and saying "hang on, were all British, this doesnt make sense" is a testimony to the fact that the different nations have always been alive within the Union.

It's really only in the last century, where thr popular franchise has come into being that there has been increasing pressure as the power has invested in the Commons and hence in England's constituencies. England has all the population and hence all the power. Not an unfair deal, but not a good one for Scotland.

The fact that Scotland re-established a parliament that covers the historical boundaries of Scotland shows that Scotland the nation exists apart from the English nation or the British state. From a simple point of view of delivery of services, devolution wouldnt necessarily have covered Scotland but would possibly have sub divided it further. 

So aye, there is a simple legal fact that each constituency has as much sway as any other. Yet we cannot avoid the historical context that Scotland has continued to exist as a nation but within the modern British state is disenfranchised through the imbalance inherent in populations.

Either Scotland is a nation, with it's own priorities, issues and demands that needs to be dealt with at the national level. Or it isnt, and "Scotland" is an anarchic term vaguely covering a collection of constituencies with no greater claim than any other in the British state. I think history proves the former, but it's the popular Uniost half way house between those two positions that must eventually resolve into one or the other.

That’s the thing for me, there are two reasons to support the movement of power away from Westminster to a more local decision making body.
 

The first is that you just believe strongly in self-determination and decisions being made closer to home. That’s absolutely fine and is a reason to support not only Scottish independence, but also to eventually support regions breaking away from Scotland and forming their own micro nations.

 

I would imagine that not many people fall into this camp.

 

So then the entire argument gets reduced to “Scotland is a nation” 

[AndyM]

On 18/10/2023 at 06:59, Mastermind said:

Is it not the big Independence Referendum tomorrow? I’m sure Wee Nippy said it would be happening on 19th October is that not right? 
 

Haven’t had my ballot paper through yet

"Wee Nippy".  

That's truly tragic tragic patter straight off the Twitter window licker section.

 

[renton]

3 minutes ago, Donathan said:

That’s the thing for me, there are two reasons to support the movement of power away from Westminster to a more local decision making body.
 

The first is that you just believe strongly in self-determination and decisions being made closer to home. That’s absolutely fine and is a reason to support not only Scottish independence, but also to eventually support regions breaking away from Scotland and forming their own micro nations.

 

I would imagine that not many people fall into this camp.

 

So then the entire argument gets reduced to “Scotland is a nation” 

We'd be the only corner of the world where that wasnt held to be sufficent argument.

Nations are stories, held as a kind of common knowledge in folks heads.

[oneteaminglasgow]

I’d be absolutely fine with various bits of Scotland forming their own microstates if that’s what the people of those places want btw. 

[Donathan]

9 minutes ago, renton said:

We'd be the only corner of the world where that wasnt held to be sufficent argument.

Nations are stories, held as a kind of common knowledge in folks heads.

For me Scotland is a nation in the same way that Gibraltar, the Faroe Islands and Guam are nations. They enjoy national pride and have their own sports teams, but politically and economically form part of a much bigger nation. 

1 minute ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

I’d be absolutely fine with various bits of Scotland forming their own microstates if that’s what the people of those places want btw. 

That’s absolutely fine. All I’m saying is that “Scotland is ruled by England” is no different from saying that “Orkney is ruled by Glasgow” 

[renton]

5 minutes ago, Donathan said:

For me Scotland is a nation in the same way that Gibraltar, the Faroe Islands and Guam are nations. They enjoy national pride and have their own sports teams, but politically and economically form part of a much bigger nation. 

That’s absolutely fine. All I’m saying is that “Scotland is ruled by England” is no different from saying that “Orkney is ruled by Glasgow” 

There is not deemed to be any seperate national boundary between Glasgow and Orkney to create those kinds of tensions. 

To retread my original post. If there is one British state, then there is no problem. If there are Scottish and English nations then there is a clear power imbalance there that prejudices Scotland.

As for the rest, i'd note that the tension between nation and states is alleviated to a greater degree by the far greater degree of self rule afforded those examples.

Edited October 19, 2023 by renton

[oneteaminglasgow]

2 minutes ago, Donathan said:

That’s absolutely fine. All I’m saying is that “Scotland is ruled by England” is no different from saying that “Orkney is ruled by Glasgow” 

Except it definitely is different. Because Orkney and Glasgow are widely considered to be within the same nation, whereas Scotland and England are widely considered to be different nations. No one is disputing that, within nations, there will be a power imbalance between areas dependent upon population. However, the question is whether accepting that same power imbalance between nations is acceptable is another matter.

[Donathan]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

There is not deemed to be any seperate national boundary between Glasgow and Orkney to create those kinds of tensions. 

To retread my original post. If there is one British state, then there is no problem. If there are Scottish and English nations then there is a clear power imbalance there that prejudices Scotland.

As for the rest, i'd note that the tension between nation and states is alleviated to a greater degree by the far greater degree of self rule afforded those examples.

On the bolded point, again it reduces the argument back to “Scotland is a nation”

 

On the underlined point, I’m not particularly familiar with the level of home rule awarded to the examples I gave (or any other similar arrangements you can think of) but I’d be interested to learn about them and how they compare to the Scottish Parliament. 

[Donathan]

Just now, oneteaminglasgow said:

Except it definitely is different. Because Orkney and Glasgow are widely considered to be within the same nation, whereas Scotland and England are widely considered to be different nations. No one is disputing that, within nations, there will be a power imbalance between areas dependent upon population. However, the question is whether accepting that same power imbalance between nations is acceptable is another matter.

So you’re just reducing the argument to “Scotland is a nation” then

[renton]

2 minutes ago, Donathan said:

So you’re just reducing the argument to “Scotland is a nation” then

It's by and large been the clinching argument everywhere else.

[Donathan]

I think what Renton is saying is that Scotland should go the full hog and become an independent nation, or fully accepted that they’re a region no different to Yorkshire or Pennsylvania or New South Wales. Am I right @renton?

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

39 minutes ago, renton said:

Shorne of all historical and cultural context, that'd make sense. If you are a believer that the UK is a true unitary state, a mere amalgamatuin of it's WM constituencies, that'd make sense.

However, if you take the view that Scotland exists as a nation in it's own right, that England exists as a nation in it's own right - then the whole exercise collapses.

Whatever the legal pre-amble associated with the Act of Union in creating one state, the actual clauses within did everything it could to sustain the seperate national feeling. Maintaining a seperate church, education system and legal system pretty much covered the important facets of civil life and meant there was never going to be any significant integration of the seperate peoples into one Great British People. Hell, even the flag was designed as a union of Scotland and England rather than a new flag signifying a new nation (and indeed for the first 100 years or so after Union, the flag when flown in Scotand was reversed, with the saltire on top of the English cross)

For most of the existence of the Union, Scotland was run at arms length by a variety of Scottish lords via various patronages, seen as a junior partner in Empire - but as a partner nontheless: Together, but seperate. Not as part of the British homogeneous whole.

The fact that Scotland and England organised themsleves as seperate sports teams over time, rather than stopping and saying "hang on, were all British, this doesnt make sense" is a testimony to the fact that the different nations have always been alive within the Union.

It's really only in the last century, where thr popular franchise has come into being that there has been increasing pressure as the power has invested in the Commons and hence in England's constituencies. England has all the population and hence all the power. Not an unfair deal, but not a good one for Scotland.

The fact that Scotland re-established a parliament that covers the historical boundaries of Scotland shows that Scotland the nation exists apart from the English nation or the British state. From a simple point of view of delivery of services, devolution wouldnt necessarily have covered Scotland but would possibly have sub divided it further. 

So aye, there is a simple legal fact that each constituency has as much sway as any other. Yet we cannot avoid the historical context that Scotland has continued to exist as a nation but within the modern British state is disenfranchised through the imbalance inherent in populations.

Either Scotland is a nation, with it's own priorities, issues and demands that needs to be dealt with at the national level. Or it isnt, and "Scotland" is an anarchoristic term vaguely covering a collection of constituencies with no greater claim than any other in the British state. I think history proves the former, but it's the popular Uniost half way house between those two positions that must eventually resolve into one or the other.

A well thought out and thought provoking post.

I’d argue that we also have to take the borders of Kingdoms that pre-dated Scotland, or even Scots as a distinct people into account too though.

The Scots were originally the inhabitants of Dalriada - a Kingdom which spanned parts of what we now know as Scotland and Northern Ireland.  Other Kingdoms also straddled what we now see as a border between us and England.

The Britons were/are a far older distinct group than the Scots too, and the mass shifts of peoples across it’s ever changing borders over the ages have been huge and continuous.

I wholly respect the opinions of Scottish Nationalists, especially from a historical point of view, but they also must respect those who see Britishness as an identity.  Sadly, I rarely see this taking place.

I’d never deny Scotland her nationhood, but it must also be accepted that Britain is a country and a nation too.

Edited October 19, 2023 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[oneteaminglasgow]

2 minutes ago, Donathan said:

So you’re just reducing the argument to “Scotland is a nation” then

Eh, yeah. Because it is.

Are you saying that Scotland isn’t a nation? 

[renton]

Just now, Donathan said:

I think what Renton is saying is that Scotland should go the full hog and become an independent nation, or fully accepted that they’re a region no different to Yorkshire or Pennsylvania or New South Wales. Am I right @renton?

Either it's a nation or it's a quaint term used by the tourist board to cover a region of otherwise unremarkable constituencies.

Also worth pointing out that Pennsylvania, as a unit has far more autonomy than Scotland within it's federal nation state.

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said:

A well thought out and thought provoking post.

I’d argue that we also have to take the borders of Kingdoms that pre-dated Scotland, or even Scots as a distinct people into account too though.

The Scots were originally the inhabitants of Dalriada - a Kingdom which spanned parts of what we now know as Scotland and Northern Ireland.  Other Kingdoms straddled that we now see as a border between us and England.

The Britons were/are a far older distinct group than the Scots too, and the mass shifts of peoples across it’s ever changing borders over the ages have been huge and continuous.

I wholly respect the opinions of Scottish Nationalists, especially from a historical point of view, but they also must respect those who see Britishness as an identity.  Sadly, I rarely see this taking place.

I’d never deny Scotland her nationhood, but it must also be accepted that Britain is a country and a nation too.

FFS! You even mention Northern Ireland earlier in your post!

"Britain" is not a country or a nation. It is a land-mass. The country that you want to remain part of is called the United Kingdom, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland.

Why are so many Yoons unable to correctly name the nation that they wish to remain part of?