Originally posted by TeinosukeI agree with most of what you say here. The historical wars between Scotland and England were more to do with religion, property, European alliances and so on, more than they were to do with a simple nationalist sentiment on either side (at Culloden, brother fought against brother).
As a Brit myself, I think that the case of Scotland and the case of Ireland are quite different. I don't think my country has anything to be proud of in terms of its conduct towards Ireland; it was conquered territory, and its people, who had long been ill-treated, had every right to seek self-determination. Also, our desire to hold onto the six northern c ...[text shortened]... nd why polls generally show that a majority of Scots would vote against full independence.
The only problem I have is with the taxpayer subsidy argument. I'm pretty sure Scotland comes farther down the list than places like Newcastle and indeed London.
Being a young man in the 80s (with nationalist tendencies anyway), I'm sure that I've been scarred by the Thatcher government's atrocious, sacrificial policies towards my country. As I said, Scotland continuously voted Labour only to end up being governed by a Prime Minister who hated us. Which other democratic country would find itself in that position?
However, whilst I'm justifiably proud of all of Scotland's great achievements over the centuries, I am not blinkered to all of it's faults. I dislike the blanket blaming of the English for all of our problems. We do have it in our power to become independent if we choose and yet we don't. From the pathetic turnout for the vote in 1979 to the hyporitical woad face painted football supporters who do not vote for independence, we only have ourselves to blame for a lot of our woes.
But, again, I would like to hear from anyone who lives in a country which has been invaded, occupied, exploited by another country and who is grateful for it. I think it all depends on your native country's history as to what your perspective is. For instance, a previous poster promoted the idea of brave British soldiers fighting to defend their country in WWI yet denounced the Irish rebels as terrorists for doing the exact same thing for their country.
2 edits
Originally posted by The SnapperThe taxpayer subsidy argument isn't actually one I advance myself, since I'm not sure of the precise figures; however, it is an argument that is current in the debate, so I mentioned it as one possible perspective on the issue (I think I said "Some people complain" or words to that effect).
The only problem I have is with the taxpayer subsidy argument. I'm pretty sure Scotland comes farther down the list than places like Newcastle and indeed London.
Being a young man in the 80s (with nationalist tendencies anyway), I'm sure that I've been scarred by the Thatcher government's atrocious, sacrificial policies towards my country. Which other democratic country would find itself in that position?
Although, indeed, the Thatcher era must have been traumatic for many in Scotland (as it was, let it not be forgotten, for many of us in England too), I don't think the situation is absolutely unparallelled. As I said in my second post, Scotland's present position within the United Kingdom seems to me closely analagous to that of Catalonia within Spain, and I'm sure there have been times when the federal Spanish government has been of a different political persuasion from that of the majority of the Catalan people. This sort of situation can arise wherever a federal nation exists.
Naturally you have much to be proud of in terms of the marvellous cultural heritage of Scotland. If a majority of Scots want independence, then no doubt in the long run you'll get it - but I for one would be sad not to be able to think of you any longer as my compatriots.
Originally posted by eamon oDo you mean in the same way that Ireland is subsidised by Europe?
thats a good one, why is scotland heavily subsidised by england then?
you can call yourself a country when you can afford to pay your bills 😛
I would be more than happy for Scotland to be able to make its own fiscal policy and to have access to all of its oil revenue as well but unfortunately that is not the case. The Barnett formula was created by a British government and yet some English complain about it. So...independence for Scotland, to be fair to England as well. I don't have a problem with that.
1 edit
I stopped listening to the economic arguments ages ago. Give me a person with a view either way, and I'll give you yet another, different set of figures, arrived at by a different means... 'ah, but you've got to include...', 'ah, but what about...'. If you've heard the arguments rehearsed before, you'll know that 'subsidies' and 'oil revenue', amongst other things, quickly become catchphrases.
Were Scotland and what would remain of the UK to separate, I don't think anyone knows or can reasonably imagine would happen to their economies - except to say that neither country would slip in to an abyss and become an economic basket-case, and neither would suddenly ascend to global economic supremacy.
In fact, you can see it all happening again with respect to the credit crunch: would it have happened, or been as bad in an independent Scotland? Would an independent Scotland be in a better position to weather the storm?
I think it's a purely sentimental nationalism, really (in both arguments) which is one of the reasons it has never come remotely close to anything resembling militancy.
Oh, and I have *absolutely no idea* how I would vote in an independence referendum. I often think I just wouldn't vote, which seems kind of weird for some reason.
Originally posted by The SnapperWell, what is true "as far as you're concerned" doesn't really mean anything. Scotland isn't a country, because to be a country you have to be recognized as such by other countries. Perhaps you would like it to be a country, but that's a different matter.
I'm not sure what you mean by your first point here. As far as I'm concerned, Scotland is a country, not a region.
For your second, as I said before, I believe that there is a higher priority than prosperity. (And I should have said Communist bloc rather than Soviet bloc, sorry).
And for your third point, I could agree with you, but in the case of ...[text shortened]... es at dfifferent times, otherwise there wouldn't have been popular support for the uprising.
For your second, as I said before, I believe that there is a higher priority than prosperity.
Why?
And for your third point, I could agree with you, but in the case of Ireland especially, and less so Scotland, the British government wasn't good, it was detrimental to varying degrees at dfifferent times, otherwise there wouldn't have been popular support for the uprising.
I don't know enough about that to comment on it - I just said that any independence should be because the British rule was bad, not because of nationalist sentiments.
Originally posted by The SnapperNo of course that not what I meant, because Ireland is a country, and Scotland is obviously not.
Do you mean in the same way that Ireland is subsidised by Europe?
I would be more than happy for Scotland to be able to make its own fiscal policy and to have access to all of its oil revenue as well but unfortunately that is not the case. The Barnett formula was created by a British government and yet some English complain about it. So...independence for Scotland, to be fair to England as well. I don't have a problem with that.
Scotland has a token independance which is given purely to divide and weaken the independance movement. Of course, now the recession has come along, the Scots independance moverment have run for cover and we wont be hearing much from them for some time.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree w/most of what you have said.i am niether pro irish or english but have read extensively on this subject . were the rebels justified? ofcourse they were. any group of people continually oppressed are going to and have the right too fight back.you can only beat a dog so much before he bites you, so to speak. but the troubles have continued for decades.the "irish civil war" (june 28 1922-may 24 1923)followed after the ratification of the treaty that called for an oath of allegiance to the king,a govenor-general appointed by the crown,and the partition of 6 counties in the north
On April 24, 1916, 1000-1500 Irish patriots rose up in rebellion against British rule of Ireland, seizing large parts of the capital city. This Dublin Rising was perhaps the most important event in modern Irish history as it soon led to the emergence of a popularly elected Irish government which demanded independence. Since it was mentioned in another th ...[text shortened]... idea that armed rebellion to achieve Irish independence was, at the time, necessary.
Originally posted by eamon oI agree that it can be difficult for non-UK members to understand what the UK is. It is a union of four seperate nations. Would you argue that Wales, Northern Ireland and England are not countries either? Is Northern Ireland a part of Ireland or a part of the UK? This all depends on who you ask. A previous poster dismissed my opinion of Scotland being a country as irrelevant. And while I agree that if my opinion goes against the majority then it must submit to the majority decision, that doea not mean that my opinion is irrelevant. There is not much I can do to change the fact that I have a British passport other than to keep voting for independence and while that vote, for now, does not count for much, it is still important otherwise there would never be any political change. I consider myself Scottish and not British.
No of course that not what I meant, because Ireland is a country, and Scotland is obviously not.
Scotland has a token independance which is given purely to divide and weaken the independance movement. Of course, now the recession has come along, the Scots independance moverment have run for cover and we wont be hearing much from them for some time.
The same poster asked what defines a country. The easiest way would be to say that a country is defined by the recognition it gets from other such entities as to its political and economic independence from other countries. So, yes, in this case none of the 4 UK countries are, in fact, countries. But there is more to it than that. A country is also defined by a line on a map. And also by a shared cultural and social heritage.
The European Union is something different again. The reason that I brought that up is because, for some reason, you seem to want to have a go at Scottish (economic) independence and criticised the subsdies we get from England. And I was just pointing out that the richer nations of the EU subsidise the less fortunate countries in much the same way.
I also agree that Scotland has a token independence 'granted' to us by a British government. I am not happy with this either. I assume from your name that you are either Irish or of Irish descent. You also seem justifiably proud of Irish independence. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why you wish to criticise someone who only wants the same for their country.
Originally posted by The SnapperThe Dutch province of Friesland has a long history of independance from the Netherlands (joining in 1680), has a long cultural tradition and its own language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Frisian_language). Is Friesland a country or a province? (note that very few Frisians seek independence)
I agree that it can be difficult for non-UK members to understand what the UK is. It is a union of four seperate nations. Would you argue that Wales, Northern Ireland and England are not countries either? Is Northern Ireland a part of Ireland or a part of the UK? This all depends on who you ask. A previous poster dismissed my opinion of Scotland being a ...[text shortened]... ult to understand why you wish to criticise someone who only wants the same for their country.
2 edits
I think Scotland qualifies as a *nation* (sharing a common culture within a particular territory) but not as a *country* (a self-governing political entity), but it's probably just a matter of semantics.
I definitely think, as do most native Britons, that Great Britain comprises four very distinct entities (countries, nations or whatever you wish to call them) that we do not regard in the same way as federal states or provinces (in the Netherlands, Germany) regard themselves.
EDIT: woops, that should be the UK not Great Britain.
Originally posted by DrKFI agree. Basically, if England is a "country" then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also "countries"; if you think that the country is the United Kingdom, then England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are merely provinces. The difficulty is that once you take actual political sovereignty out of the equation, there's no clear line to draw. For instance, there are some Cornish nationalists who maintain that Cornwall is a country in its own right, and indeed, historically, it had its own language, and maintains its own, somewhat distinct, Celtic culture - though it was brought under English rule even earlier than Wales.
I think Scotland qualifies as a *nation* (sharing a common culture within a particular territory) but not as a *country* (a self-governing political entity), but it's probably just a matter of semantics.
I definitely think, as do most native Britons, that Great Britain comprises four very distinct entities (countries, nations or whatever you wish to call th ...[text shortened]... therlands, Germany) regard themselves.
EDIT: woops, that should be the UK not Great Britain.
The case of the UK is also not so anomalous as you're arguing. I've already mentioned Spain as a similar federation of culturally (and in some cases linguistically) distinct areas. In Europe, there are also such similar cases as French-speaking and Flemish-speaking Belgium; Latgale in Eastern Latvia (it has a different language and practises a different form of Christianity from the rest of Latvia); and indeed, while Germany, which you mention, seems to have a stronger federal identity, I understand that most Germans think of Bavaria as a place apart.
Thus I agree that it is, in the end, a matter of semantics. Those Scots who take justifiable pride in Scotland's rich cultural heritage are welcome to describe Scotland as a "country" to emphasise that its culture is separate from that of England, but I personally would tend to want to reserve the term "country" to refer to a political entity which has sovereignity. In other words, I think that my country is the United Kingdom, and I will begin to think of England and Scotland as two countries if and when Scotland achieves full independence.
2 edits
Originally posted by The Snapper1st, i dont know who you are argeeing with in the first part of your comment, not me. I dont believe that the UK is 3 separate nations, rather 3 provinces, and a colonial remnant on foreign soil called Northern Ireland.
I agree that it can be difficult for non-UK members to understand what the UK is. It is a union of four seperate nations. Would you argue that Wales, Northern Ireland and England are not countries either? Is Northern Ireland a part of Ireland or a part of the UK? This all depends on who you ask. A previous poster dismissed my opinion of Scotland being a ult to understand why you wish to criticise someone who only wants the same for their country.
2nd, i have lived in london for 24 years already as a uk taxpayer, so please dont assume that im some kind of foreigner who doesnt know what hes talking about.
Because of the UK structure, england, wales, and scotland are not countries in the normal sense of the word. I wont comment on northern ireland.
The Scottish hypocritical attitude is annoying and short on integrity, you generally display contempt for the uk, while at the same time taking generous handouts from uk taxpayers and you are welcomed into England to work, like me, when it suits you. That is my principal criticism of Scotland. I have to say there is also a perception of a mean spirit such as the way, for example, so many Scots wanted England knocked out of the football world cup and would support anyone playing against England. That leaves a bad taste.
The UK may only be my adopted country, but I feel some gratitude and loyalty to the UK that I have been welcomed and employed here for many years.
Originally posted by eamon oThis is just, as we'd put in in the nation of Scotland, mince.
1st, i dont know who you are argeeing with in the first part of your comment, not me. I dont believe that the UK is 3 separate nations, rather 3 provinces, and a colonial remnant on foreign soil called Northern Ireland.
2nd, i have lived in london for 24 years already as a uk taxpayer, so please dont assume that im some kind of foreigner who doesnt know wh ...[text shortened]... some gratitude and loyalty to the UK that I have been welcomed and employed here for many years.
We're a nation because we identify ourselves as one. It is as simple as that. Whether we have independence is irrelevant. It might mean we're not a state, but that's a different thing altogether.
As to the idea that we take handouts from the UK, that's just not the case either. If anything, we subsidise the rest of the UK, while paying for projects where only London and the SE will benefit. (2012 olympics anyone?).
If we're such a burden on the UK, why do they resist our attempts to get out?
Originally posted by eamon oA weird little rant, explicable only through repeated and prolonged exposure to the Evening Standard, I'd have thought.
1st, i dont know who you are argeeing with in the first part of your comment, not me. I dont believe that the UK is 3 separate nations, rather 3 provinces, and a colonial remnant on foreign soil called Northern Ireland.
2nd, i have lived in london for 24 years already as a uk taxpayer, so please dont assume that im some kind of foreigner who doesnt know wh ...[text shortened]... some gratitude and loyalty to the UK that I have been welcomed and employed here for many years.