News:

Welcome to the new look Cook'd and Bomb'd


Scotland's future

Started by Bigfella, October 06, 2021, 09:39:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bigfella

Quite a lot to take in from the replies, overwhelming to be honest.  I would like commentary about the contrast between the 2014 Indy debate and Brexit 2016.  The right wanted to have their cake and eat it: Britain must be free from all foreign/external control, but similar concerns raised by it's constituent parts shall not be entertained.  Also - was devolution in Scotland a shrewd move of appeasement  by the smarter element in Labour when they witnessed Salmond's SNP growing rapidly in the late 90's?

The Dog

Douglas 3000 tracking a swarm of nano shortbread through a big tartan wormhole

Bigfella

Quote from: bgmnts on October 06, 2021, 09:44:54 AM
Yes.
Euros.
Yes
On the last 'yes'... get rid of the Windsors, sure.  We might get all sort of punters turning up to try and take their place.  The Stuarts.  The Bruces.  Malcolms and Donalds.  Shall we just say no royals at all, save us all the bother?

Alberon

Since Scotland is going to go at some point couldn't the rest of us just load the country up with the UK's debt? Just like they do with companies.

If we are going to be stuck with Tory rule forever more at least let us have some benefits.

Bigfella

Quote from: Dex Sawash on October 06, 2021, 11:25:37 AM
I am American and didn't know Scotland was on the same island as England until Mel Gibson walked there in Braveheart and I ran to get an atlas to see if that was possible. Best ignore any opinion I have then.
Don't put yourself down, pal.  You're from a country which has broken free from Westminster and seems to be doing well.  That's the topic in hand!

Jerzy Bondov

Quote from: Alberon on October 06, 2021, 03:50:25 PM
Since Scotland is going to go at some point couldn't the rest of us just load the country up with the UK's debt? Just like they do with companies.

If we are going to be stuck with Tory rule forever more at least let us have some benefits.
Take all the radioactive waste up there and drop it into lochs

Bigfella

October 06, 2021, 04:18:57 PM #66 Last Edit: October 06, 2021, 04:34:40 PM by Bigfella
Quote from: Kankurette on October 06, 2021, 01:00:09 PM
I AM ENGLISH but my dad was Scottish so if you guys break away, and I would totally not blame you if you did, I'm applying for dual nationality.

Wouldn't Spain oppose Scotland joining the EU because it might give the Catalans Ideas?
Hear what you're saying.  Maybe the EU would say that unlike Catalonia, Scotland has always been recognised as a country in it's own right, regardless of independence.

canadagoose

I'm patiently hoping independence will still happen. I know Holyrood can be a bit shite and that the left isn't as strong there as it could be, but come on, Westminster is an absolute joke. Even modest change has no chance of happening at Westminster at the moment. If Scotland could make an example of how to do things right, rather than making a mess, it might "encourage" it.

gib


Garam

It isn't going to happen. Not in the near future at least

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

Just from a purely practical standpoint, Scotland should learn from the sewage fire that is Brexit and figure out the following:

1) What goods and services does Scotland get from or via the rest of the UK?
2) What amount of funds does Scotland receive from the rest of the UK?
3) If 1) and 2) go away, how will that affect the economy/people's lives and how can Scotland make up the shortfall?
4) Would the EU permit an independent Scotland to join the EU?
5) How long would that process take?
6) What happens if Scotland's application to the EU is rejected?
6b) What if the Scottish general public don't want to join the EU?
7) What do the various Acts of Union and any subsequent related legislation say with regard to Scotland leaving the Union?
8) What needs to happen to make Scotland more self-sufficient and attractive to investors?

This'll be strange coming from your neighbour Ireland, so desperate to leave that we fought a war and left 6/32ths of the country behind, but the last thing anybody needs is for the government to go "OKAY YES WE VOTED TO LEAVE LET'S LEAVE oh shit we've done no research or no preparation everything is fucked"

Zetetic

Quote from: Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse on October 06, 2021, 07:13:44 PM
8) What needs to happen to make Scotland more self-sufficient and attractive to investors?
You're going to need to put an end to the death squads for a start, and none of 1 to 7 begins to tackle that.

the hum

October 06, 2021, 08:30:20 PM #72 Last Edit: October 06, 2021, 09:15:46 PM by the hum
Quote from: Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse on October 06, 2021, 07:13:44 PM
Just from a purely practical standpoint, Scotland should learn from the sewage fire that is Brexit and figure out the following:

1) What goods and services does Scotland get from or via the rest of the UK?
2) What amount of funds does Scotland receive from the rest of the UK?
3) If 1) and 2) go away, how will that affect the economy/people's lives and how can Scotland make up the shortfall?
4) Would the EU permit an independent Scotland to join the EU?
5) How long would that process take?
6) What happens if Scotland's application to the EU is rejected?
6b) What if the Scottish general public don't want to join the EU?
7) What do the various Acts of Union and any subsequent related legislation say with regard to Scotland leaving the Union?
8) What needs to happen to make Scotland more self-sufficient and attractive to investors?

This'll be strange coming from your neighbour Ireland, so desperate to leave that we fought a war and left 6/32ths of the country behind, but the last thing anybody needs is for the government to go "OKAY YES WE VOTED TO LEAVE LET'S LEAVE oh shit we've done no research or no preparation everything is fucked"

There is decent info out there on a lot if not all of the above, but unfortunately it's all pretty fragmented. The 2014 ScotGov publication "Scotland's Future" contained a depth of info, but was criticised for reading too much like a wish list. The more recent Common Weal publication "How to Start a New Country" is arguably far more useful in having a stab at addressing the realistically required process and transition phase, and tackling thorny issues like currency, foreign currency reserves etc.

On a couple of your questions:
5) Finland holds the fastest process time from application to membership of just under 3 years (application submitted March 1992, membership Jan 1995). Not saying this would pertain to Scotland. It might, but would among a great many other things partly depend on the answers to questions 1 to 4.
6b) Polling is showing support for membership running at about 70%, although if you asked the question in greater depth, i.e. indy Scotland within EU, or UK within EU, support might be a tad more ambiguous.

Edit to add:
I think (4) is unanswerable this side of an indy Yes vote and a subsequent application for membership. There's no way there'd be some concrete official answer from the EU without an established independent Scotland being a reality. I guess that makes it a high risk game IF you consider EU membership being a be all and end all goal that must happen quickly, but much less so if the more straightforward goals of returning to the single market etc are the more immediate aim. I do think though the tired trope of "Scotland will be well down the queue behind Kosovo etc" holds no water.

Sherman Krank

Quote from: Garam on October 06, 2021, 07:01:34 PM
It isn't going to happen. Not in the near future at least
That's reminded me of the prediction made by 17th century seer Agnes McBampott, which goes...

Scotland shall ne'er be free
Til the auld clunge o' death
No longer draws breath
And the haddies return to the sea

The final line has caused much conjecture with some suggesting it refers to haddock and an increase in quotas for Scottish fishing boats in the North Sea while others believe that by 'haddies' she meant Scottish Tories and by 'return to the sea' she meant drowned in a barrel of piss.
 

katzenjammer

Don't like the sound of the auld clunge o' death

Garam

Quote from: Sherman Krank on October 06, 2021, 09:20:52 PM
That's reminded me of the prediction made by 17th century seer Agnes McBampott, which goes...

Scotland shall ne'er be free
Til the auld clunge o' death
No longer draws breath
And the haddies return to the sea

The final line has caused much conjecture with some suggesting it refers to haddock and an increase in quotas for Scottish fishing boats in the North Sea while others believe that by 'haddies' she meant Scottish Tories and by 'return to the sea' she meant drowned in a barrel of piss.


an impressive level of superciliousness, even by scottish standards. top patter

Zetetic

Perhaps the most important question, according to "UK" Labour anyway, is whether Kier Starmer will have unfettered access to the blood of Scottish and Welsh women post-independence.

(Yes, presumably.)

Johnny Foreigner

Quote from: Old Nehamkin on October 06, 2021, 11:35:24 AM
This whole framing is strange to me though because I still don't understand what makes support for Scottish independence any more inherently "nationalistic" than Unionism. The belief that the United Kingdom should be indefinitely preserved could be framed as "nationalism" just as easily as the belief that it shouldn't be, and you only need to take a cursory glance at some of the louder elements of Scotland's anti-independence coalition to see that violently nationalistic rhetoric is, let's say, not entirely unheard of on that side of the fence (try walking into your local Rangers pub and see where talking shit about the British empire or the queen gets you).

Since 2014, I've seen a fair few people in my hometown put up Saltires outside their houses, and I've also seen a fair few people put up Union Jacks (the latter often clearly done in retaliation to the former or vice-versa). Now and then (but less frequently than is often caricatured) I've heard pro-Indy people directly conflate the independence movement with Scotland's historical conflicts against England, and conversely I've heard anti-Indy people going on about loyalty to the monarchy and identification with the perceived glory of Britain's military/imperial past. People on both sides are capable of interpreting and expressing their position in varied and sometimes conflicting terms, "nationalistic" in character or otherwise. I don't accept that the anti-independence position should be seen as an inherently neutral one simply because it involves preserving the status quo.

Those are good points, but I was not trying to frame, at least not deliberately; I merely expressed my surprise at finding that a nationalist movement could be progressive. For a useful answer, you would have to define what a nation is first. Is there such a thing as a British nation? There are some signs of it, though not many. I am of the opinion that there is no Belgian nation. Belgium is merely a country, a political construct that happens to be peopled by different groups, who all have their own interests and very little in common with the others-the most glaringly obvious symptom being that they speak completely different languages. By consequence, they use different media and know next to nothing about what goes on on the other side of the language border.

Scotland and England clearly speak the same language, no an urrainn dhuinn a' bhith bruidhinn mu dhèidhinn seo anns an cànan Albannach, ma-tà? Scottish people are quite-well informed on English current affairs, though the other way round, not so much. The BBC remains a powerful, mostly reliable institution. The UK also has national newspapers. To me, Scotland-England hence seems more of a monoculture than Flanders-Wallonia does.

Preserving the status quo is, of course, the essence of conservatism and therefore by definition non-neutral. As for the perceived glory of the Empire or the UK's miltary past: for where I am standing, the British were not that bad. The Frogs occupied us, the Austrians occupied us, the Dutch occupied us, the Germans occupied us. The UK just left us alone most of the time, and helped us twice. It is a matter of whom you ask. In fact, I should venture to say that, on most of the Continent, the British and the UK as a country are really quite well-liked, as, from a European viewpoint, they have been on the good side of history. I can imagine how that is difficult to see from a UK perspective.

That's all in the past. Now there is an unwieldy, slightly corrupt, overly bureaucratic, capitalist think tank, commonly known as the European Union. It seems to exert an inexplicable attraction to some nations of Europe. But make no mistake: its primary purpose is to facilitate the free market. The EU arose from a trade association for the coal and steel industries in the 1950s; all the idealist babble about political unity and the federalist project were an afterthought.

Pinball

If only we'd had a 'once in a generation' referendum a couple of years ago to decide the matter.

Looks like Nicola's plans have been scuppered by the Supreme Court. Love how she is using a 'think of the children' argument to justify going it alone with Indyref2. How ethical.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-58794698

ajsmith2

Quote from: Pinball on October 07, 2021, 10:20:55 AM
If only we'd had a 'once in a generation' referendum a couple of years ago to decide the matter.

But then 2 years later along came the Brexit, as we all know.

EDIT: Unless you literally meant 'a couple of years ago' in your post, in which case I disagree, 2019 was way too early for IndyRef2.

Pinball

Quote from: ajsmith2 on October 07, 2021, 10:22:38 AM
But then 2 years later along came the Brexit, as we all know.
If only we'd had a national Brexit referendum to decide the matter.

ajsmith2

Quote from: Pinball on October 07, 2021, 10:24:39 AM
If only we'd had a national Brexit referendum to decide the matter.

Which, as we all know, the Scottish population voted overwhelmingly not in favour of. And around we go.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Johnny Foreigner on October 07, 2021, 09:54:54 AM
I merely expressed my surprise at finding that a nationalist movement could be progressive. For a useful answer, you would have to define what a nation is first. Is there such a thing as a British nation? There are some signs of it, though not many.

So this was my point about the union; due to Britain being unified (in theory) it created a shared sense of being amongst different nations, that is what a union aims to do (from individual relationships, to guilds, to countries).  Each nationality within the union becomes subordinate to that union and therefore the concentrated affects of nationalism become weakened.  Nationalism at its core is a belief in the identities of a nation, it doesn't necessarily need to then take next step (though historically has done so with terrible outcomes) into beliefs of national superiority.  Scottish nationalism has massively changed and has been adapted by the SNP from pretty much the Scottish BNP to a sense of national identity needing to be obtained for progressive values to exist. 

Nationalism needs enemies for its implementation so the UK had the EU and Scotland has the UK (though really England); actual competitive powerful enemies (continental unions and powerful nations like the UK) are very different from made up non-powerful enemies (like immigrants); these are the enemies with-out and the enemies within.  However if we take the nationalism of the Kurds fighting against being wiped out by Iraq or Indian nationalism fighting against occupation of the British Empire it is not hard to see how contextually nationalism can be positive.

On your second question;

Britain isn't a nation.  It is a union.  If you read some fucking[nb]sorry just a little jibe at that bell end from peepshow[/nb] Orwell he explains that it because you cannot define Britishness easily that defines it (going on about pet ownership and gardens and pints of beer as signifiers of Britishness); and it is an important point; a sense of nationhood is not there by design hence a combined flag and all the rest of the cultural and political infrastructure that exists around Britain.  What has recently been cultivated for political means is nationalism of nations within the union (largely the Tories and SNPs fault); that means that nations are using the union as the enemy; the Scots have good reason to do this; as England are overly dominate and haven't upheld there part of the bargain, the English Nats (of which most of the people in the political sphere like Farage are not English Nationalists but conmen who stand to profit from English Nationalism) have no excuse they have nothing to gain from losing Scotland not even independence; this is why it is unforgivable on one side but understandable on the other.

katzenjammer

How would an independent Scotland that is a member of the EU manage the border with England?  There would have to be customs inspections and passport checks wouldn't there?  More than 60% of Scottish exports go to England, would that be workable?

Blinder Data

Was v positive towards indy in the past but I do not feel the same since Brexit. Independence would be Brexit times 100. It's not just deliberately bringing up barriers with your nearest and most important neighbour, it's also learning to deliver and fund services that were previously the responsibility of someone else. I can just imagine the negotiations:

"See, this Royal Mail stuff. It looks like awful hard work. Could we just come to an easy arrangement?"
"Nope. Independence means independence."

The woolly thinking of many indy supporters is quite deplorable. So many blithely believe the SNP are doing a grand job and Sturgeon's great, and so why wouldn't it be the same for independence? You can argue independence is in the long term a good idea, but in the short to medium term I can't see how it would be anything else than total shite.

The SNP have learned from the Brexit referendum and are promising jam tomorrow and avoiding hard questions that katzenjammer raises above in order to sneak a win. Independence as a progressive project feels very 2014. To vote for it, you're essentially voting for a hard border with England and constitutional and financial chaos for the next 10-15 years.

And yet the status quo and the UK governance structure is so awful. The Union needs reform to keep it going, not Johnson and his union flag stamped on a whizzy new bridge. The future is bleak as part of the UK.

I could see myself voting for indy again, but it would be with none of the enthusiasm of 2014.

Zetetic

I'm pretty sure that Royal Mail operations in Scotland aren't run from an office in Whitehall, so I don't think that's a huge barrier.

Blinder Data

Quote from: Zetetic on October 07, 2021, 01:07:31 PM
I'm pretty sure that Royal Mail operations in Scotland aren't run from an office in Whitehall, so I don't think that's a huge barrier.

I used the post purely as an example of a UK-wide service that would need to radically change following Scotland's exit from the UK. If it helps, feel free to replace Royal Mail with any UK government service (DVLA, HMRC, MOD, etc.).

Pinball

Quote from: ajsmith2 on October 07, 2021, 10:26:42 AM
Which, as we all know, the Scottish population voted overwhelmingly not in favour of. And around we go.
Many regions and cities voted against Brexit. London, for example. But that's the thing with national votes. They are national.

Where would the disintegration of the UK end? So many tribes to assuage.

ajsmith2

October 07, 2021, 02:10:47 PM #88 Last Edit: October 07, 2021, 02:25:41 PM by ajsmith2
Quote from: Pinball on October 07, 2021, 01:29:34 PM
Many regions and cities voted against Brexit. London, for example. But that's the thing with national votes. They are national.

Where would the disintegration of the UK end? So many tribes to assuage.

Scotland is a bit more than a 'region' as you know though. It's a country with a partially devolved parliament. I don't really want to continue this back and forth through stuff I'm sure you're already aware of and that's been debated (and will continue to be) by more invested/cleverer brains than mine all over including this forum ad nauseum. I'm not even rabidly pro Indy or anything. I just got triggered into stating the clear fact that there's a lot more nuance to the topic beyond the point that 'well there was a referendum in 2014, job done' can be used as a definitive mic dropper. Sure it was sold as a once in a generation vote but then Better Together was sold as the safe pro-EU option. Much has been in flux since 7 years ago.

All Surrogate

Quote from: Jerzy Bondov on October 06, 2021, 01:45:03 PM
I AM ENGLISH (I don't really think of myself as English but I grudging accept that I basically am) and of fucking course the UK needs breaking up. Are you joking? It's a fucking nightmare and has been since it was put together. Think of all the evil done in the name of Britain, not just around the world but right here. We need to own up, accept we're the baddies, and listen when people say they want to get away from us. Of course this will never ever happen.

I'll be very jealous when Scotland and NI get away from this shit show

You're equating England with the UK/Britain, and implying that all the 'evil' done by the British Empire etc. is the sole responsibility of english people, and that scottish people were completely innocent. That isn't the case. Scottish people were intimately involved in the building of the empire, and it's arguable that the scottish independence movement in part grew out of the decline of the British Empire and the loss of the benefits that it provided to Scotland.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a major reason that the Union occurred was because Scotland's own attempt to build an empire, the Darien Scheme, had failed. By forming the Union, Scotland got to biggy-back on the growing english colonial system; having an empire was an attraction of the Union for Scotland, not a detraction. The reason Glasgow flourished is the same reason that Liverpool did: building ships to transport slaves (and other things, of course).