open Democracy News Analysis - Scotland - Comments

Dougthedug on "Referendum rethink - The Liberal Democrats and the future of Scotland"

Dougthedug — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:52:54 +0000

Clarinda:

Oops, never spotted that one.

The full quote in the Herald was,

Herald wrote:

Asked if he would call a referendum if he were returned as First Minister Mr Gray said it would “depend on the circumstances at the time” and that the question should be a straight yes or no on independence.

I'll have to watch where I select when I cut and paste next time.

Clarinda on "Referendum rethink - The Liberal Democrats and the future of Scotland"

Clarinda — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:07:43 +0000

A typo surely Dougthedug, when you say "First Minister Mr Gray" as your link to the Herald article? Your deductions on the LibDem flim-flam are pretty close though!

Nice photo of the Knuckle Brothers on the beach at Brighton all the same.

Toque on "Referendum rethink - The Liberal Democrats and the future of Scotland"

Toque — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:34:43 +0000

An independence referendum in Scotland in a win-win situation for the SNP, even if they don't expect to win it, because it legitimises the Scottish nationhood/statehood and in a strange way it would do much the same for the watching England and Wales.

I wouldn't expect the SNP to win an independence referendum, but a multi-option referendum would surely result in the Scottish people demanding even greater powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Dougthedug on "Referendum rethink - The Liberal Democrats and the future of Scotland"

Dougthedug — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:54:04 +0000

Quote:

...who (Stephen Glenn) retorts that a referendum will call the SNP's bluff.

Calling someone's bluff only works if the hand they've got is weak and they hope you'll fold before they have to put their cards on the table. It's a common and perhaps desperate wish in Scottish Unionist circles that the SNP don't really want a referendum or independence and a referendum is something they want to avoid.

Tom Griffin wrote:

...revives their distinctive federalist vision

The Lib-Dems don't have any distinctive vision. Their "federalist" plan is indistinguisable from Labour's, "Nations and Regions", plan for devolution. The Lib-Dems want parliaments/assemblies in Scotland, Wales, NI and various regions of England just the same as Labour.

Calman is a dead duck because Labour have abandoned Calman and indicated that they only want a two option referendum, First Minister Mr Gray said it would "depend on the circumstances at the time" and that the question should be a straight yes or no on independence. In any case Labour are not going to form the next government while Cameron has said that he doesn't want to do anything with Calman till after the next plus one General Election. In other words, never.

A referendum is the only way the Lib-Dems will get any chance at all of the Calman recommendations being implemented before the heat death of the universe but since two of the three parties involved in Calman have already gone cold on the mess of recommendations that it produced the Lib-Dems may be doing the same thing or they may have always treated it as a distraction and anti-SNP tactic as Labour and the Conservatives did.

Of course, in the light of their backing down over a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty the Lib-Dems are intrinsically opposed to referendums where they don't like the question and since their constitution is based on keeping the union I'd be surprised if they would ever willing go along with the idea of an independence referendum.

Tavish will prevail this time and it's more of an excercise in being seen to do something than a direct challenge to Tavish.

It's a moot point if the Scottish wing of the British Lib-Dem party actually have authority to call a referendum without Clegg's say so as article 5.1 of their constitution says:

Lib-Dem Constitution wrote:

The Federal Party shall determine the policy of the Party in those areas which might reasonably be expected to fall within the remit of the federal institutions in the context of a federal United Kingdom.

The Cornish Democrat on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

The Cornish Democrat — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:23:00 +0000

I asked a similar question a while ago concerning the Duchy of Cornwall. Equally we could ask about the other Crown protectorates and dependencies such as the Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

I'm not totally sure but the relationship of the Duchy and other Crown protectorates is not with England (or Scotland and Wales) but with the Crown.

They are not united with England (and Wales) or Scotland, but rather rest against the Crown.

So if Scotland (Wales, NI) left the Union the Crown (Sovereign) would clearly remain with England. The Crown protectorates would therefore remain the responsibility of the Sovereign and his/her government of the Kingdom of England.

After all when Ireland left the Union they didn't take with them 'their share' of dependent territories. Neither would Scotland.

Equally if Scotland balked republicanism and maintained the Crown as some form of titular head of state, like Canada or Australia, then they would have no more say over Jersey than Australia does.

The Cornish Democrat

douglas clark on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

douglas clark — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:33:12 +0000

It occurs to me that there are a good few issues that are never discussed about the dismantling of the UK state. Because someone upthread mentioned the Falklands, there seems to me to be a legitimate question of what happens to the UKs' residual Empire?

Is it simply assumed that Gibraltar, The Falklands, etc would automatically revert to Westminster, and if that is the assumption, why is it the assumption?

antiqueone on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

antiqueone — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:19:45 +0000

Surely this is topsy turvey. for the last 12 years the United Kingdom has been "governed" by a Scottish Mafia giving massive advantages to Scotland. Scotland has less voters per MP than any other part of the kingdom and gets more money per head spent on them.
Surely the referendum should be held in the whole of the United Kingdom, without Scotland, asking if we want independence from Scotland.

bigC on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

bigC — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:58:57 +0000

....hey it's only a name and most people in England don't have the same
nationalist chips on their shoulder that some Scots seem to have

You have to be kidding.

Mark, Edinburgh on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

Mark, Edinburgh — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:50:43 +0000

Just to be silly, but also to try and make a serious point if you think about it.

How do you have full Scottish Independence, preserve the Union, feather bed Scottish lawyers and boost the value of my property all at the same time? Simple;

1. England and Wales abolishes itself and renames itself Scotland.
2. English and Welsh MPs sit in the Holyrood Parliament in this new expanded Scotland
3. Scottish Law applies throughout the island.

or to put it another way the Union parliament moves north (fair enough surely after 300 years in London, and its closer to palces like Newcastle anyway?).

This reform removes at one stroke the only basis for the artificial bogus grievance politics got up by a small self interested class. I love to quote the fact, and fact it is, that the SNP has 15,000 paid up members and the National Trust in Scotland has 350,000 paid up members.

You could say that its all a bit unfair on England, but hey it's only a name and most people in England don't have the same nationalist chips on their shoulder that some Scots seem to have (I think this is because some Scots think they are a put upon minority in the UK simply because of this branding, whereas of course in reality there are no significant differences between us whatsoever.)

I think its worth doing away with the name England to get rid of all this nonsense.

(for footie supporters I suggest the new name for the southern side would be Manarse)

Zen9 on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

Zen9 — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:54:09 +0000

I suspect there indeed many who would undergo such feelings.

However from what I've seen and heard of Scottish debate there is a massive naivety towards England. A prevailing assumption that England is somehow going to be different and more like Scotland than the UK is now. This assumption fails to recognise the enduring interests of England which make up such a influence uppon UK interests, if not the overwheliming bulk of them.

Almost certainly England will inherit the responcabilities of the UK, within NATO, the EU and the UNSC.

London will still be a major center of global finance.

And there links with the Commonwealth, Dominion states, Fivepower defence pact and the USA will remain. Especialy that last, the UK-USA relationship will simply become the England-USA relationship.

Should independance come, there is going to be fall out on both sides of the border.

Ireland has been independant for some time, but it has done so by on the one hand not being in the thrall of a enemy power (to the UK) and on the other being vulnerable to the UK's ability to shut it off from the rest of the world. Thus the threat of a weak Ireland is contained, but at the price the planning and cost to the UK. So its no wonder Ireland can afford lower taxes, since they are spending less especialy in the military field, gambling the UK cannot permit them to be taken and must spend accordingly with the obvious effect on UK taxes.

Should Scotland follow this path, Anglo-Scottish relations are going to sour. Since it will be far more visible than that of Ireland.

Gerry Hassan on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

Gerry Hassan — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:17:05 +0000

The comments of Brian Barder and J Fox are interesting and revealing on a number of levels.

Firstly, there is no such phenomenon as ‘Scottish separatism’; this is seen as an inaccurate and provocative term only used by people trying to caricature Scottish opinion. The correct terms are ‘Scottish nationalism’ and pro-independence/pro-self-determination opinion.

Secondly, the forces of Scottish nationalism and self-determination bring up as the two comments reveal all sorts of issues about England and the UK. Leave aside the issue that Scottish independence is not about Scotland ‘leaving’ the UK but actually ends the UK – given Scotland and England created the UK.

What is fascinating is the feelings and thoughts which are unleashed in England even in progressive circles by what is happening in Scotland. I sense that there is a widespread sense of confusion, loss and grievance – about the slow end of something – the UK that many have known and felt attachment to – and an anxiety and fear about what is coming. I think it would be fascinating to assess what a group of English voters felt by sitting and watching a session of the Scottish Parliament: I suspect they would feel threatened and confused by the SNP, and have a whole host of fears about England and the UK.

English opinion has to – for the sake of England and the UK – move beyond this stage and develop a democratic imagination and voice.

JFox on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

JFox — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:11:28 +0000

You asked for it - so here's some homework (a few samples of about a thousand references I have on this issue):
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.....and a couple of juicy quotes from Alex Salmond:
Addressing the SNP’s annual conference in Perth, Mr Salmond asked: Who broke down the barriers in the financial sector? Who presided over the inflation of asset values? Who allowed the spivs and speculators of the £40 trillion derivatives market – the financial weapons of mass destruction - to be totally unregulated? It may have had something to do with the occupant of 10 and 11 Downing Street over the last 11 long years.

How's this for a neat piece of oil demagoguery from the SNP leader:

The Treasury’s financial black hole is being filled with Scotland’s black, black oil. It's a national outrage and it’s time we did something about it.
I think the mood actually is becoming one of fury in Scotland that we and we alone among the oil-producers of the world, producing 10 times our consumption of hydrocarbons at the present moment, should be faced with an extraordinary position that while every other oil producer, through sovereign funds and the build-up of huge sums of capital, has the resources available to power their economy into the future, what’s left for the people of Scotland is paying sky-high prices at the pumps and the industries of Scotland facing escalating costs.

JFox on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

JFox — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:11:28 +0000

How's this for a neat piece of oil demagoguery from the SNP leader:

Mike Small on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

Mike Small — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:36:37 +0000

JFox you wrote: "Scottish separatism... appears to be based on not much more than small-minded nationalism buttressed by anti-English rhetoric and perverse overstatement of grievances".

The old canard that the movement for self-determination is based around anti-English rhetoric always reminds me of the old Joni Mitchell song 'Your So Vain'. If your going to make such statements you should back them up with examples.

Second you state:

"In place of brotherhood (and sisterhood!), it seeks estrangement. It points up our differences rather than our commonalities. It appeals to narrow, nationalistic self-interest often in terms unpleasantly reminiscent of less peaceful episodes of European history."

Except it doesn't seek estrangement. It seeks to determine its own affairs. In a week where the Scottish Govt got lambasted for publishing proposals for foreign policy that would be far more open and just than the British States current policies.

In an independent Scotland, the report states a policy of "integration" for asylum seekers and refugees would be pursued "from day one of their arrival".

They would be allowed to work while awaiting results of their claim and, even if they are rejected, they could be allowed to stay if they have a job.

When you state 'It appeals to narrow, nationalistic self-interest often in terms unpleasantly reminiscent of less peaceful episodes of European history' could you be specific? Because one of the defining characteristics of the Scottish nationalist movement is its moderation, its civic orientation, its peacefulness and its lack of recourse to racial or ethnic language.

As the British State locks up children in Dungavel and hordes march in cities organised by the "English Defense League", as Nick Griffin prepares himself for Question Time, I really take objection to the lack of cohesion, detail or rationality in your argument.

JFox on "The long march to Scotland’s independence referendum"

JFox — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:13:31 +0000

Yours is by far the most heartening, far-sighted, and inspirational contribution to the debate on these pages. Like you I am also English but with a diverse ancestry (notably Spanish-Dutch Jewry and Welsh catholic!), and with close family members of Scottish, Israeli, Mexican and New Zealand orgin. I look upon the UK not as failure but as an unfinished project - often betrayed it is true by a feckless political elite and by misguided militarism - but one that nonetheless has produced an astonishing array of great thinkers, artists, and scientists, and has also shown itself capable - when the chips have been down - of remarkable resilience in defence of values that this forum exists, in part, to strengthen and celebrate.

There are times when oppression or victimisation by a larger group may lead a people to seek separation. Twenty-first-century Scottish separatism is not one of these. Rather it appears to be based on not much more than small-minded nationalism buttressed by anti-English rhetoric and perverse overstatement of grievances - notwithstanding attempts (readily visible in contributions to this debate) to furnish it with a deeper theoretical overlay.

In place of brotherhood (and sisterhood!), it seeks estrangement. It points up our differences rather than our commonalities.It appeals to narrow, nationalistic self-interest often in terms unpleasantly reminiscent of less peaceful episodes of European history.

And it misrepresents the degree of independence truly available to a small country on the periphery of the European continent - perhaps because its proponents have not adequately considered - or lack experience of - the wider world.

Separation is not the same as independence. Scotland may well separate from the UK; but its degree of independence will be dictated by a host of other factors - political, geographic, demographic and economic - most of which will be permanently beyond its control.

I believe that if the Scottish people do choose to separate - in other words to define the rest of us as foreigners - they will impoverish both themselves and the citizens of the other component nations. But will they take this plunge? Somehow, I doubt it.