Positive-case-for-the-Union update #15
We’ve noticed, and perhaps you have too, that things have been very quiet on the “positive case for the Union” front recently. (Partly, we suspect, because the constant hooting of nationalists over its continued absence was starting to become so loud and embarrassing that even the Unionist media couldn’t keep ignoring it.)
Ever since David Cameron visited Scotland in February and mumbled some vague platitudes about maybe getting more powers someday if we voted No in 2014, Unionists seem to have given up on even promising a “positive” case and have concentrated more doggedly than ever on the blood-curdling scare tactics that they’re much more familiar and comfortable with.
(Recent weeks have delivered a particularly fine crop, which can be concisely and accurately summed up by the sentence “Vote Yes and Scotland will be blown up by terrorists and bombed by England, then everyone left will die of cancer.”)
We’ve spotted a couple of stray mentions – neither of which, it probably goes without saying, go on to actually offer the positive case they cite – but nothing very significant:
“Although Unionists seem to find it difficult to articulate a positive argument for union, Scottish nationalists are not afflicted by the same inhibitions.”
(Colin Kidd, The Scotsman, 15 May 2012)“It’s our job to drown out [Alex Salmond’s] separatist rhetoric with a positive case for keeping the Union intact.”
(Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, Conservative Party chairman, 23 March 2012)
That was until today, however. Our regular bout of hope-over-expectation Googling threw up a site called “Free Advice For Unionists”, in which someone by the name of Rob Marrs who lays claim to no fewer than THREE nationalities (Scottish, English and British) boldly attempted to go where no Unionist had gone before.
In a piece helpfully entitled “A positive case for the Union“, he lays out a load of the same tired old romantic emotional cobblers that the Prime Minister did, exhorting Scots to take pride in the UK’s achievements of the past (NHS, BBC, Our Brave Boys blah blah) without troubling to note why they’re relevant to the present and future, or indeed to observe that modern neoliberal UK governments of all stripes are evangelically intent on actively dismantling most of them as fast as possible.
The closest he gets, in fact, is the extraordinary claim that Britain’s present-day economy is something to be proud of. No, we’re not making that up.
“Our economy – built by us all, and as perilously balanced as it may be – is the 7th largest economy in the world. These little islands, this islands off France, house some of the richest people in the world.”
It’s a mindboggling notion – even as the UK sinks into a double-dip recession characterised by massive rises in inequality, the already obscenely wealthy feathering their nests with hundreds of billions of pounds as the government casts the working poor and the disabled into penury the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the 1930s, to the extent that even the Daily Mail is outraged, Mr Marrs proudly champions the fact that the greedy rich are bleeding the country to death as a benefit of the Union.
It gets better, though. The direction in which subsidy flows across the border is a hotly-disputed topic, and one which most commentators see as central to the outcome of the referendum. The multinational Mr Marrs, though, is clear about his view:
“As an Englishman, I am a unionist because I realise that we are better off with Scotland’s immense contribution. As a Scotsman, I’m a unionist because I want to make that contribution.”
There you have it, folks – vote No to independence, because then you’ll be able to keep sending Scotland’s wealth to England so that George Osborne can divert it from disabled children into the pockets of billionaires. With a tempting offer like that on the table, we’re afraid the Yes camp may already have lost.
———————————————————————————————-
TIME ELAPSED: 32 years, 3 months
ACTUAL SIGHTINGS OF POSITIVE CASE FOR UNION TO DATE: 0
———————————————————————————————-
What a warm feeling of revulsion overcomes me when I realise that, thanks to Mr Marr’s generous one-way transmission of our country’s wealth, we are assisting in the laudable campaign of keeping rich people rich. Such generosity of spirit prompts me to ponder whether Mr Marr put the pissed in philanthropist.
And as a fully signed up red-white-and-blue turkey this has fully convinced me that it is my patriotic duty to vote for Christmas.
Rob Marrs wouldn’t be a distant relative of Andrew Marr from dear old BBC Sunday morning politics programmes would he? 😀
If he isn’t sounds like he should be!
I don’t know what there is to say about the (non) appearance of the “positive case for the union”. However, the “positive case for Independence” does seem to be having an affect.
The Spectator magazine will be holding a debate on 27th June on the issue of Scotland’s Independence.
Arguing the case FOR Independence will be Gerry Hassan, Kelvin MacKenzie and Lord Fraser of Carmylie. Remember that last name folks as I’ll return back to it later. 😀
Arguing the case FOR the union will be Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Rory Stewart and no doubt some other non entity.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/tory-peer-to-back-scots-exit-from-uk.17547571
Now to return to that name I mentioned earlier, remember him, Lord Fraser of Carmylie. Now why on earth would I draw attention to this individual? Well, not too long ago this “same” individual was threatening Scotland that our airports would be bombed from England! I jest thee not! 😀
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/4559-tory-peers-bizarre-claim-that-westminster-would-qbomb-scottish-airportsq
All I can say is that if we can achieve such a turn a round on such a “highly respected” individual as Lord Fraser then surely we can achieve the same result on “lesser unionists.”
The POSITIVE case for Independence is winning. Let’s keep up the pressure, others will fall and we will win the day. NEVER take your eyes off the ultimate prize and we will win in 2014!
How tedious, he’s just utilising the same tired old arguments that constantly get thrown around by people who think they’ve discovered something no one else has. It’s like the old “unanswered questions” which have been answered millions of times. Well, I’ve refuted these same arguments so many times before, it’s like someone running at a taiji master with a baseball bat. A deft little flick, and he’s flat on his back.
By 2014, I’ll be able to rattle off a whole book of reasons for independence, just from memory.
“Now to return to that name I mentioned earlier, remember him, Lord Fraser of Carmylie. Now why on earth would I draw attention to this individual? Well, not too long ago this “same” individual was threatening Scotland that our airports would be bombed from England! I jest thee not! ”
If the guy was a nut-job before according to you’s lot, he remains one now…? Can’t have it both ways.
Besides him, Kelvin Mackenzie…? Seriously? Wow, the Nats really are pulling out the intelligentsia for this debate; the Great and the Good indeed. Who’s next in line I wonder, Max Clifford?
I’m not especially a fan, but heck, I’ll take Sir Malcolm Rifkind anyday.
I suspect that it was the Spectator that chose this particular fruit and nut selection rather than the SNP saying “here is our short-list of chosen experts, select the ones you want.” That seems more likely, don’t you think? Also, I’d prefer Hugo Rifkind over his dad, he’s funnier.
McKenzie and Carmylie as pro independence….. that looks like a joke.
loved the comment “The fact you refer to Manchester a Northern City says much about your perspective”…
I have a question , does anyone actually know anyone apart from Gordon Brown who would say they are British first and Scottish second ? no anecdotal quotes , have you ever heard that phrase from a Scot.
I have heard loads of English folk describe themselves as British when asked and even seen them change it to English when I say Scottish(as if the West Coat accent isn’t telling enough) ….I think this whole English/British lost identity thing is the root of many folks down south animosity towards Scottish self determination.
Got to agree that Malkie Rifkind is a less offensive Tory. I also have a wee soft spot for Annabelle but find the new one a bit wooden, she just reeks of first generation Tory. A bit too rigid.
The response on this is a little disappointing. I should point out what Nationalists see as the ‘same old tired’ etc etc – those in favour of the Union see as being part of why they love being part of the UK. When this blog was released I was told by one of your cybercrew that his opinion was not valid as he was an Englishman. You dismiss anything from Westminster with as much disregard.
The attitude towards Unionists is equally disappointing “Arguing the case FOR the union will be Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Rory Stewart and no doubt some other non entity.” Do you even know who Rory Stewart is or what he has achieved? If so and you maintain he is a non-entity then shame on you. If not, equally, shame on you. You make no mention of the fact that Kelvin McKenzie is one of the most odious men in the public sphere at the moment. He is the champion of the ‘subsidy junkie’ line that is only peddled by the moron.
I should point out that I have no issue with Independence, though it is not what I want. What I do not like is the attitude of Nationalists. The arrogance is astonishing. The number of times I have been called ‘stupid’ and ‘ignorant’ on twittter – not to mention ‘("Quizmaster" - Ed)’ and at one stage a dictator?! My crime? Being a Unionist
If the Nationalists want people to listen to them they need to improve their attitude. Do not forget for one moment that what you seek to do is tear apart the UK and you have to make a positive case for doing so. I know that you think you have. But you have not.
You want Independence but want to retain Sterling? This makes no sense.
The lender of last result would be the BoE and you would have no control of monetary/fiscal policy. Again, Independence?
You want Independence but seek to remain in the EU – Taking orders from Brussels?!
You complain about the Supreme Court but conveniently ignore the ECHR…
The vast majority of Nats (if not all) do not wish to retain the Monarchy yet your leader makes no mention of this.
You complained relentlessly about Lab/Tory coalitions but then did the same in D&G?
These are just a snippet of the reasons that people have an issue with the SNP. If you think that you have already won the argument then please do remain of that mindset.
The way that you dismiss people who do not share your views is astonishing as it is terrifying. Whatever the result in 2014 we will all have to live together and unless you drop the ‘all Unionists are morons’ view then it will not make for a pleasant existence.
“The response on this is a little disappointing. I should point out what Nationalists see as the ‘same old tired’ etc etc – those in favour of the Union see as being part of why they love being part of the UK.”
You miss the point. Nationalists have been mocked and derided for decades for allegedly wanting independence for shallow, emotional, romanticised reasons fixated on events scores or hundreds of years in the past. Yet bizarrely, a romantic attachment to the past is all the Unionist side now seems able to offer as a reason to stay in the UK.
Yes, it was super that we all joined together to fight Hitler, but so did lots of other people who weren’t in the Union, so it clearly wasn’t the thing that made it happen.
We want to know what the Union is good for NOW, and as this series documents, so far the reasons are thin on the ground.
“You want Independence but seek to remain in the EU – Taking orders from Brussels?!”
By that argument, of course, we take orders from Brussels now as part of the UK, so what would we be losing? (See also the currency argument. At the very least we’d be no worse off than we are with the BoE taking decisions now, but we’d have control over a vast range of other stuff that we currently don’t.)
Nobody votes UKIP in Scotland. Appealing to UKIP values with frothing Euroscepticism isn’t going to win the No camp many votes.
‘What would we be losing’?
The notion of Independence and wanting to control your own destiny. Which is why you want Independence, is it not?
Either you want Independence or you want Devo(something or another). Independence is out of the EU and not using Sterling.
“The notion of Independence and wanting to control your own destiny.”
You haven’t answered the point. Is the UK, therefore, currently not independent and in control of its own destiny, as it too “takes orders from Brussels”?
Yes, I would see the UK leave the EU. The UK is not currently independent whilst it remains in the EU.
All this nonsense about needing to be in the union to fight a war. commonwealth forces made up huge swathes of the armed forces in WW1 and II and mostly on a voluntary basis….Canada,NZ and Aus didn’t need to be in the Union.
So, how does your notion of Independence fit with being in the EU and not having full fiscal control?
@TheMaganator
“Independence is out of the EU and not using Sterling”
No. It would appear that you misunderstand the concept of independence.
Independence is BEING ABLE TO CHOOSE to be out of the EU (or in it), and to choose to use Sterling (or peg our own currency to it, or use the euro, or float our own).
France uses the Euro and is in the EU. Is it not an independent country as it shares a currency and is in the EU? Of course it is. Your arguments are nonsensical.
The whole concept of independence is being free to choose the approaches that best suit the country, not what Unionists believe independence should entail.
Saying to someone that they cant do something is pointless, if they are free to choose to do it anyway.
Good governance and freedom of choice. That is the goal of independence.
“The UK is not currently independent”
Then we can safely regard your argument as silly.
In any state, be it Britain or an independent Scotland (or, for that matter, within the EU), money will transfer from the rich to the poor, from one area of the country to another, via taxation. It is not a sense of shame that ‘x takes from y’. It should be a mark of pride in any civilised society.
If the piece had gone on to say “This is our vision for the future” then it might indeed be a positive case for the union.
Unfortunately the reality is that every part of the UK north and west of the Midlands are exploited, asset stripped or, at best, neglected in order to further enrich the South East.
I for one would not mind so much if our current democratic deficit was a result of some grand scheme to equalise wealth and opportunity. Reality is, however, the direct opposite.
The mythical “positive case for the Union”, if it existed, would require indeed to ” ..focus a little on [those who have gone before]….but [be] anchor[ed].. in the present..”
No mention of the future – no vision?
Only a neo-liberal vision is available to the Union whether administered by Labour or Tory- nothing else is electable in England.
A quote from Iain Banks sums up this part of the debate for me: ” Thatcherism, and the enthusiasm with which it was embraced in England, made a lot of Scots realise that we were meaningfully different.”
“Then we can safely regard your argument as silly”
We are certainly free to leave the EU, so in that respect we are independent. However, whilst remaining in the EU no country is fully independent. The UK is more so than others are we are not confined by the Euro.
Would you agree with that?
That TheMaganator chap has a bit of bee in his bunnet. A very tired and familiar bee, but still just a bee.
One thing though, can ye no just let us as a nation (and I mean Scotland) define without interference what we want from independence, and not try to impose on us what crypto-xenophobic Unionists think we should have.
Once Scotland is independent, the rUK can set its own house in order and if you guys want to be ‘independent’ of Europe or wherever, we’ll not stop you.
I would agree to that on the same basis that as long as Scotland is on Earth we are influenced by the global economy. As long as we do business in Europe we are tied to Europe. The EU ‘experiment’ should we choose to remain in it does I agree require us to adhere to some club rules, then again unless you are North Korea most countries are influences by international rules.
None of this has a bearing on whether we should remain part of the UK, if as I suspect you are a Euroscepic then you should be positive Scottish independence as your influence of outsiders arguments apply to teh EU and the UK in different degrees.
Indeed. I don’t think setting the civilised world’s normal definition of “independent” against some gigantically unrealistic fantasy-land “ideal” is particularly useful for either side. Unless the suggestion is that Scotland/the UK should be entirely self-sufficient and never trade or interact with any other nation in any way, rules are going to apply to that interaction which will necessarily impinge on the concept of “independence”. This blog has defined at length what “independence” in a modern context means – it means the people of Scotland alone choose Scotland’s government. No more, no less.
Maganator,
Consider a proposal to bind the diverse nations of the EU closer.
I suggest:
Brussels sets the rates and collects all personal, corporate and value added taxation throughout the union.
Funds for national expenditure are then distributed to the individual states according to (Brussels’ view of) their requirements.
All EU armed forces are united under central control from Brussels where the final decision on participation in conflict will rest.
All fiscal policy including borrowing and lending is centrally controlled – individual states cannot borrow and must balance the budget allocated to them.
Immigration policy is set by the EU rather than by nation states.
All the foregoing will be governed by simple majority voting – so there can be no question of a democratic deficit.
At this point I will respectfully assume that you would not wish the UK to be part of such a Union.
If not, why should Scotland be subject to exactly those doctrines within “our” Union?
Here we go again. The minute someone tries to criticise the SNP, out come the purile and juvenile arguments and criticisms.
What many people forget is that everyone currently lives in the union, and knows exactly how they benefit or are disadvantaged by it. The nationalist argument is that everything will be great and we will all be rich.
Independence does have some attractions, but the current policy on Europe is a mistake, the currency issue is all over the place and defence policy is a joke. Add in a vacuum in transport regulation and it seems the people do not always come first. The only two areas which have been really good are Health and the freeze on Council Tax. That is not enough.
If independence is so attractive, then why do only approximately a third of people want it, the same number that want the status quo?
The argument for independence is missing something. A majority in Holyrood, more councillors and the most popular leader yet there is no great surge for independence, even with the Tories buggering up everything.
At present, the SNP is not going to get the result they want. And this with a weak opposition at Holyrood.
For many people the overriding principle is ‘morality’. If we accept that ‘morality’ is that point on the continuum between good and evil at which we establish our personal standpoint, then nuclear power, warmongering, the shameful execution of US foreign policy, the appropriation of all oil rights, the squandering of the profits on mass unemployment, on extending the London Underground, the inaction on poverty and the massive gulf between rich and poor are just some of the reasons why Scots question the benefits of the Union.
“The minute someone tries to criticise the SNP, out come the purile and juvenile arguments and criticisms.”
You seem to have missed the point of the post by some distance.
“If independence is so attractive, then why do only approximately a third of people want it, the same number that want the status quo?”
We have no idea how many people want it. There have been no significant polls in months, and polls are fairly irrelevant anyway at the moment, since we don’t even know what the actual referendum options will be.
“The argument for independence is missing something.”
A fair and balanced hearing in the media? Honest debate from the Unionist side?
“The nationalist argument is that everything will be great and we will all be rich.”
You sound like Tom Harris. The nationalist argument is no such thing, at least unless you’re lumping every nationalist in with the dimmest ranting loony on Twitter, and if you’re doing that then you’re as guilty of debasing the debate as anyone.
It’s so simple.
Do you hand over your paypacket every Friday to your next door neighbour, and ask them to run your life for you?
Or are you a grown-up who looks after themselves?
On the other hand though, it surely isn’t true to say that no-one has ever managed to come up with one single positive case for the Union, surely?
I’m not “up” on the standard reasons that are trotted out – though these probably are some of them.
What about strength in numbers; a bulwark against the financial vagaries (and impending meltdown) of the failed European project? Small, standalone states stand the very real risk of being sucked under the waves, in the ensuing vortex?
On a purely cultural level, how about our shared language, history, culture and roots? Scotland and England go together like fish and chips, with our fused economies, borne of 200+ years of union. The ‘balkanization’/divorce of the United Kingdom would surely be pretty much like any other divorce – steeped in misery, acrimony and with both parties ending up much the poorer for it?
Defence? I’m not one of those who think that Scotland would be carpet bombed upon declaring independence, but there again, I can think of many half-laudable scenarios where the Royal Navy could come in handy, either as a deterrent or, in the worst case, as an actual defender of Scottish assets, particularly offshore, in a world of diminishing resources?
If not the Union, does Scotland really see its future at the heart of the EU…? Seriously? Just take a look at it – and see how they treat their “fellow Europeans” like Greece, another small standalone state? (You’ll see how even much larger economies are treated too, soon enough. Even now, Spain has 25% unemployment, yet the clarion call for Brussels, or more accurately Berlin, is for more austerity, more hardship…?)
England needs Scotland, for sure. But there again, I believe Scotland needs England. The problem with all of this is, of course, the way “England” treated Scotland, back in the 80s, with seeming political contempt and as a test tube for ludicrous, fundamentalist experiments like the Poll Tax. A bit – nay, a lot – of honest humility from the likes of Cameron – “I’m very sorry for the terrible things that my Party did to Scotland and the Scottish people” would go some way to heal this rift with many Scots, I believe, or at least start the process of meaningful reconciliation.
TheMaganator says:
“You want Independence but want to retain Sterling? This makes no sense.”
etc.
And with your own words you damn yourself. You have not read up on the history of other cases or else you’d know that this is not unusual. It has been done before several times in other examples. It’s the best way to transition and work things out. It makes perfect sense yet you seem to be boggled by something as simple as this which has even been done before by others to show the way. This kind of question tells me you are ill-informed of the issues at hand. How can you make any case or argument at all if you don’t even know the history and precedents involved in the issue you are trying to deal with or argue about? Your arguments are weak and the kind of emotional and fact-devoid rubbish that crops up in the lesser quality British media constantly in a recycled manner. You are simply not able to make a positive case for the union today despite the title of the article itself and you still can’t do it in the comments, relying on dicredited tired old nonsense instead and neatly avoiding any positive case. Failure heaped upon failure. I can forgive the average person and those keen to learn (we all have to start somewhere and will make mistakes through life) but when you’re writing and speaking as if bestowing some great knowledge and wisdom to the public as if you were an expert arguing against the nationalist view, rather than admitting you are completely out of your depth.
There are people able to make a good argument and they’ve cropped up here and there when discussing these things before but you and yours are not one of them. Everything you’ve come up with is unoriginal and has been demolished here and elsewhere repeatedly, which you’d know if you’d bother to read up on the subject before writing an article on it. This seems to be the most consistent thing about the public face of the unionist camp. It relies heavily upon ignorance and emotional (usually ridiculous scaremongering) levers.
Even a good cup of tea and a little logical thinking should be able to answer some of these questions for you. Take the emotional “Taking orders from Brussels?!” one you brought up. As pointed out previously, the country already does through the UK, so at worst would not lose out. The benefit to Scotland of going direct to the EU instead via independence would be the choice of deciding the level of Scottish involvment in it for itself (now and in the future) AND being able to argue always for the maximum benefit for Scotland with the rest of Europe and it’s treaties for itself – instead of relying upon the whims and good graces of a proxy who has demonstrably shown it does not always choose what is best for Scotland when negotiating with Europe (Scotland’s economy being sacrificed in the past to benefit current or future negotiations that will aid London, etc. being done as recently as the last Labour administration and no doubt to be repeated under the current). This would not happen if Scotland’s voice was heard direct and we could always work for what is best for us, not what is best for Westminster’s plans. If you had the choice of asking personally for something that would get the most benefit for yourself or instead allowing someone in another town you hardly knew to do it for you who might not even like you (or have a conflict of interest in your success on the matter and instead choose to help themselves or someone else), you would be an utter fool to let them have that power.
“The vast majority of Nats (if not all) do not wish to retain the Monarchy yet your leader makes no mention of this.”
Idiotic, petty and untrue. There is no great secret here. It is not even an issue. It has been said repeatedly that such details would be for an independent Scotland to decide just as others have in their time. It is a non-issue until then as there is no ability to decide upon it or let the public vote on it until independence. Ever heard of Canada or Australia or New Zealand? You might want to Google them you haven’t because they became independent and debated about those issues (sometimes more than once over generations with occasional votes) after the fact. Scotland isn’t magically incapable of doing what has been done several times before by others. You’re fretting about what colour of plates to serve the meal on before we’ve even decided on the recipie or bought the ingredients. It can go along with the rest of the inconsequential rubbish and minor details that the unionists try to bog everything down with but in reality would be decided upon easily by the public after independence, one way or another. You’re skirting into the TOO WEE, TOO POOR, TOO STUPID territory that the FUDs love.
You’d have to be utterly mad not to see the benefits of independence on the EU issue. The rest of your arguments are equally missing out on the great wealth of benefits that independence would bring and rely upon ignorance to take hold and cause fear or concern. I probably sound a bit harsh in this post but it really gets frustrating to hear the same bloody awful arguments that have been demolished again and again and each time the same tired old arguments are brought out by someone like you as if they were original and not flogged to death. It’s like hearing the echos from the gutter press forever from the mouths and keyboards of the cyberFUDs.
Everything you’ve come away with here is silly and has crumbled in a day and you’ve nothing to support them.
Positive case for the Union:-
1. Cost of split will not be insignificant.
2. Scotland is very dependent on rUK trade, therefore it needs to retain a good degree of good will. Any negative reaction from rUK consumers however unlikely might have a direct impact on our economy(Boyd Tunnockism).
3. Size is important if we get any future financial crash, better to be big.
That is about as much as I can get from inside my head. I just don’t see this as being enough for me to vote no.
@Captain Caveman
Now that is more like it. It’s a decent bit of thought and debate and it’s not just the same old or parroting a newspaper. When someone says something like that it makes everyone pause on think on it even if they disagree.
For the financial side of things it’s so far being found that the larger entities are not always those who weather it best and likewise the smallest not the worst. When looking at the sums the UK has a bigger debt risk for the future than Scotland alone and economy-wise Scotland would be healthier on its own, especially when revenues were no longer directed to Westminster spending. If anything the huge vulnerable banking sector is likely the biggest hole to suck us in if it becomes a popped bubble. The Eurozone having gone into a Eurohole is good timing really as now there’s zero chance of Scotland dipping its toe in that pool and no way to convince it in the current form (perhaps in generations later with the talked of reformed currency with only the wealthier northern nations, etc, but that’s a tale for another day if it ever materialises and it may not at all).
I’ve long suspected that a break-up would in fact be mutually beneficial – like a bad rushed or forced marriage ending and the two people involved realising it was a mistake and was dragging them down instead of lifting them up. I think once the break up happens it would also give England or the English a chance to really look at the books and start reforms which would benefit the country but worry some of those who are happy with the way things are and heading. There are people who are probably lying awake at night in fear of this happening.
America, Ireland and Britain were “fused” together and have historical ties, as were many of the old empire states and many places that declared independence from other nations. Time doesn’t just wash that away or undo it or even make it a bad thing for them to go their own way. If I grab someone off the street and put them in the basement it doesn’t become okay after a certain amount of time. Time is not an excuse or sufficient gloss to cover up anything simply by painting on more and more of it. It’s the now and future that matters. Divorces can and have benefited many people. Likewise it can be argued from the case of children in the parental home rather than a marriage. They might spend 18 or 20-odd years in that home, but eventually they will benefit from seperation to go on their own path to flourish. The children gain their independence. Staying in that home for longer and longer doesn’t make it healthy or the best choice and saying that you’ve been there for a long time already doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to stay there forevermore.
Scotland could easily afford a perfectly suitable defence force and has the expertise for it, just as others do. We don’t need the current military force which is an expeditionary force like a mini-me American one. This one is a non-issue really as it’s not going to be a problem later on. What you said is sensible and I know it’s what others would be planning for and will be able to do later anyway.
I’d agree with Europe and you rightly pointing out the larger nations failing (again showing that large does not mean “strength in numbers” like your earlier point, either as a large country or as a large group like the EU or eurozone). But an independent Scotland can still decide what is best for itself and its level of participation. The current Scotland is like a child tied to its mother’s apron strings, entirely dependent on her choices for Scotland’s future, be they right or wrong. No adult should willing submit themselves to that future forever.
I think a change of tune like your last point would help matters if it happened ten or twenty years ago at least, but after generations of being blasted with constant negativity and being treated like it was a watered down version of pre-war nazi germany jewish tension and blame game (crafty Scots did this! Mean drunk Scots control everything!) it is too late to reverse that train as it’s already in the process of being a wreck. The London media and political atmosphere is still distinctly negative and hostile towards Scotland and the Scottish (with comments and attitudes that if you replaced “Scottish” with “Jewish” or “black” you’d be arrested or lambasted for), which only highlights the alienation and distinction between the two instead of giving any kind of sense of brotherhood. It gives a hostile colony-master type of atmosphere, rightly or wrongly. It’s just a shame that someone didn’t suggest some of your thoughts decades ago and was listened to by the right people.
On the upside I’ve no doubt you’d be welcome and able to travel in independent Scotland and hopefully it would be to the benefit of us all, which I believe it will be.
I’m very worried about Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria – they’re obviously all going down the financial pan, just like those tiny wee vulnerable nations like Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, the UK… er… admittedly Ireland and Iceland haven’t fared too well but their standards of living are still higher than the UK’s (and improving faster). In the words of that noted Viking, Gobber the Belch, “A’ll take ma chances”.
You’d be surprised with Iceland, MajorBloodnok. Lots of hysteria earlier on when the crash was hitting everyone in turn, but what has been lost to the public once the media went quieter on it is the remarkable recovery. Iceland already has a better financial outlook than the UK. It recovered quickly, has shown growth when others have stagnated or shrunk or sunk into double dips and even the IMF itself (after much hysterical doom and gloom from the financial markets when “plucky Iceland stood up for itself”) predicts better growth and GDP per capita in coming years than the UK’s.
It’s smaller than metropolitan Glasgow. It’s a micronation compared to much larger Spain or even Greece (Athens being bigger population-wise than Iceland as a country).
I’d say they’ve fared rather well.
@ Kenny Campbell
But those arent really POSITIVE cases for the Union, more NEGATIVE cases against independence.
A positive case needs to impart a vision of the future that can be worked towards. What you are citing is merely day one of working towards that goal. Its short term thinking and thats why Unionists want people to focus on day 1, not decade 1.
The independence narrative has a vision, a roadmap of how to get there and a proportion of the populace willing to accept that vision.
Unionism has no clue what it is trying to achieve for Scotland in 5 years, let alone 5 Decades, there is no plan, only a proportion of the populace too scared or ill informed to deviate from what they grew up with.
This is why we need independence – long term prosperity from short term impact.
Initial costs will be offset in the medium term from savings in Governance, reductions in defence spending and the investment of capital expenditure in Scotland rather than the South East of England.
Scotland is in the EEA so trade will still occur between Scotland an England. The type of action you describe would have to be a consumer boycot – all boycots end eventually – especially when you consider that in todays globalised world a great deal of products are international in origin and multinational in production.
Regarding size, yes its true that large countries can weather storms with less impact, but on the other hand, small countries take a larger hit but recover faster and are better placed to ride recoveries – overall, the small niche player wins out against the bigger state. Its the ability to turn on a sixpence rather than lumber around like a supertakner that gives small countries an edge i that regard. This is heightened when small nations work together to mutual benefit – the so called ‘Flotilla effect’. Scotland will even be better placed than most since we can expect an Oil fund in the longer term to cushion global downturns, so long term the prospects are good.
Although the arguments you cite are better than most Unionist arguments, they still only focus on short term thinking. This is why Independence will win – on big decisions politicians think in 5 year terms, people think in lifetimes.
Captain Caveman hits two well projected nails bang on the head.
My real worry about independence is the effect it will have on our neighbourly relations.
Scott Minto and many others appear to believe that if independence was achieved it would be a velvet divorce. That aint going to happen. Not when you have a massive national debt, dubiety over the debt of RBS, and a resource like oil providing a tax bankroll for the exchequer.
My real fear would be a hostile Westminster government ramping up English nationalist sentiment against the selfish greedy Scots. It’s a real and present danger. Mad stuff like airport bombing is a symptom of it – no matter how ludicrous it sounds.
The Captain’s bang on again about the 80s being the root of the problem. The Scots were well and truly shafted by Thatcher’s Tories. An imposition, ironically, aided by the SNP and their original Turkey vote. The SNP cannot be trusted, their vision doesn’t really extend beyond the limited national interest of home rule.
The Thatcherite/Eton Tories really are the Scots Nationalists best friends. It’s the only time your average Scot, other than polarised militants and Braveheart Commandos, gives much of a s**t about home rule.
If Murdochgate drives the long delayed stake through Cameron’s heart, we may see a change in economic direction or some kind of glimmer of hope – Euro willing.
I’m not against independence per se, at this period in time however, you can guarantee it will be protracted, divisive and diminishing of both countries in economic and cultural terms.
An independent Scotland needs England to be both strong economically and confident culturally. Independence in 2014 COULD be a hammer blow to both. That’s potentially very dangerous. The use of the term Balkanisation might not be far off the mark.
@Longshanker
“Scott Minto and many others appear to believe that if independence was achieved it would be a velvet divorce”
No, there will be wrangling on many issues, but the crucial thing to remember is that it is in the interest of the rUK to negotiate precicely because of the things you mention.
A “Velvet Divorce” would see assets and debts split along population lines. This has precident in other independence movements. Of course the SNP will argue that Scotland should get more since it paid more taxes proportionatley, and the rUK will argue that RBS is scottish so the bank bail outs should be paid for more in Scotland.
Neither argument will hold water since –
1) Historical payment of joint assets is not taken as a benchmark, populations percentages are.
2) RBS, HBOS and the like were international companies and their activites were in London, regulated by the UK, so again population splits will occur.
As far as natural assets go, they are covered as unrealised natural assets and accrue to the nation under which they lie – there is no split. rUK gets the gas at humberside, Scotland gets all the oil and gas in our waters.
The alternative to this is that if the rUK causes issues, then Scotland walks away under the clean slate principle and all the debts and non-fixed assets go to rUK.
This then results in Scotland using its lack of debt, and high level of natural resources to acquire money from the markets to buy their own assets, and only ones that they really need.
Essentially the rUK gets all the historic costs as a burden and Scotland gets all the hassle of setting up everything from scratch as a burden. Both sides lose in the short term, but long ter the outlook for Scotland is better without the debt, i.e. Scotland wins in either situation, rUK ONLY wins if it negotiates.
It is not going to be emotional idiots negotiating the “divorce” but the civil service under direction of their respective governments. As I said, there will be shrieking and wailing, but in the end it benefits both to part by negotiation.
Yet once again you delve into your fantasy of the balkanisation of the Union, as if we will break down into some sort of ethnic war. This is once again, scaremongering of the lowest order and only highlights RevStu’s article commenting that there are NO positive cases for the union, only fear of change.
I doubt that many in Scotland hold any ill will to the geordies, and vice versa so I doubt that border disputes will happen, no matter how much you may fantasise about such a future.
Argh!! Where did my comment go?!?
So Alex Salmond and his party want Scotland to have the right to run its own affairs. What’s the big deal? Just like any other country. Europe is full of examples of small nations living alongside bigger ones – it’s quite normal. Think: Belgium/France, Austria/Germany, Portugal/Spain and they all get along fine, as an independent Scotland would with its neighbour, England.
There would still be no border, and friends and families would continue to move backwards and forwards as always. But Scotland wouldn’t have any nuclear weapons or right wing policies imposed by a government we never voted for.
What’s the problem?
“It is not going to be emotional idiots negotiating the “divorce” but the civil service under direction of their respective governments. As I said, there will be shrieking and wailing, but in the end it benefits both to part by negotiation. “
Precisely. It’s not as if nations have never split before. Why would Scotland and England be uniquely incapable of working things out? Isn’t just getting on with things and not making a fuss exactly what the British are supposed to be good at?
The fact is, Scotland holds most of the cards. As Sneekyboy points out, ultimately Scotland could just walk away, surrendering all UK assets and taking on no UK debt. But that won’t happen, because Westminster WILL negotiate, and it WILL play nicely. Why? Because it’s got nowhere else to put Trident for a decade, and it really, really, REALLY wants to hang on to Trident.
Trident – or more precisely, its bases – is the joker in Scotland’s pack. Westminster will concede just about anything if we let it park Trident on the Clyde for a few years.
It may be of passing interest that India (which included the modern Pakistan and Bangladesh) fought in WW2. It raised the largest completely volunteer army in that conflict. It also fought a battle – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kohima – that may, just, be the equivalent of Kursk in turning the overall war. I would be surprised if many people were even aware of it happening. I am a bit fed up with the british nationalist glorification of our role in WW2. It is a bit more complicated than that.
Of course, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan are now free to make their own way in the world…..
@SUTH
You have quite articulately backed up what the majority of my ‘article’ was about. The attitude of the Nationalist.
Your response was arrogant and condescending. Accusing those who do not agree with you of being ‘ill-informed’, having their mind ‘boggled’, ‘fact devoid rubbish’, ‘failure heaped upon failure’, accusing me of ‘writing and speaking as if bestowing some great knowledge and wisdom to the public as if you were an expert arguing against the nationalist view’ when the majority of my post was about the attitude of the Nationalist, ‘penned’ when I should have been working.
The Monarchy issue ‘Idiotic, petty and untrue’ – well, crack on.
‘Ever heard of Canada or Australia or New Zealand?‘ Charming but somewhat missing my point. With the Royal Wedding last year and the Jubilee this year people are as engaged as ever with the Royal Family.
You seem quite happy to say that the Unionist view has been ‘demolished’ – well, I am sure it has in your view. It is not you who you have to convince to separate.
The questions and criticisms that I quickly jotted down were what I said ‘were issues many have with the Nationalist’. These are the sorts of questions you are going to have to ‘demolish’ if you have any chance of winning the referendum. You would do well to remember that. Most people do not read blogs and use twitter. If you do engage with those that are unsure I suggest you bestow on them the same demeanour that you took with me.
I joined twitter to join the debate. Truth told – I am 29 years old and from Edinburgh. I’ve attended both Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities. Until I attended a talk a few weeks ago by Joan McAlpine I had never met a Nationalist and I was reasonably engaged with politics at University. I think Alex Massie wrote of a similar phenomenon for people from Edinburgh. Anyway, the attitude and mind set of 60% of the Nationalists I have encountered and read is appalling. I will not accuse you of being a cyberNat but one thing they are ‘charged’ with is pouring scorn and abuse with anybody that disagrees with them.
We have a situation now in Scotland where Labour and the Tories are joining forces against you. I will not say whether I am on the left or right of that ‘alliance’ as either way you would no doubt deride me for it. Ask yourself why parties so ideologically opposed with each are now joining forces. I am sure that in response to that you will just say the (already now tired) Nat line of ‘Unionist morons following mindlessly their Westminster puppet masters’ etc. Their supporters up here are Scottish. Deride them all you please but these are the people you are going to have to try and turn.
In sum, I am happy with you to think that I am ill-informed and ignorant. I know when engaging with the likes of you the chances of me (or anybody else for that matter) changing your mind are slim. ‘Independence at any cost’. There is not much you can say to somebody of that mindset.
Maginator,
Nor, it has to be said, is there much likelyhood that anyone will change your mind. It is the middle ground, those that are neither completely pro nor completely anti, that this decision will rest with. I used to vote Labour or Liberal. So, it’s been a journey.
I am willing to engage in a civilised debate with you. If you have issues beyond disliking nationalists because they don’t like unionists or whatever, please tell me what they are. But, please, stop pretending that the SNP are the only ones with a cohort that debases the discussion.
It is worth recalling that thousands of people read what you say here. Not all of them are rampant brit nats or scot nats. Some, at the very least, may be persuaded by your arguements. Or not. It depends how you address them, not me.
I believe ‘hearts and minds’ is what you are looking to influence?
@The Maganator
“Anyway, the attitude and mind set of 60% of the Nationalists I have encountered and read is appalling. I will not accuse you of being a cyberNat but one thing they are ‘charged’ with is pouring scorn and abuse with anybody that disagrees with them.”
You said before that above quote, “Until I attended a talk a few weeks ago …” . May I suggest that that is the crux of the matter.
If you had been reading the articles submitted in the MSM for months now, you might have a better understanding of why some who wish for an independent Scotland get ’emotional’ about the issue at times. I don’t know if you are aware, but the MSM UK-wide is subjecting its readership and audience to an almost daily stream of scare-mongering, smear, mis- and dis-information (many from journalists who are incredibly biased) against Scottish independence, the Scottish Government, the SNP and Alex Salmond.
And, also, may I suggest you take a look at comments that have been and continue to be left BTL (when comments are allowed) by many of those who disagree with Scotland’s right to independence … You will find plenty of examples there of real “scorn and abuse” . And yet, many of those MSM members allow these ‘comments’ to stand without moderation … Go figure.
Honestly, if you do have any spare time, do seek out these ‘articles’ and ‘comments’. There are loads of them out there. When you’ve had a good look at what those who are supportive of an independent Scotland are subjected to on an almost daily basis perhaps you will understand why that “attitude and mind set” of the figure you quoted can at times be one that is a result of being pretty pissed off knowing that what is being ‘put out there’ as ‘the truth’ is anything but.
Another thing to do if you should have time is follow what Scott Minto (AKA Sneekyboy) has written, especially in the Guardian (if they haven’t erased it!) His knowledge is extensive and he does a great job of debunking mistruths, smears, etc. with facts and figures, etc. in a level-headed way.
@ScotMinto
“Although the arguments you cite are better than most Unionist arguments, they still only focus on short term thinking. This is why Independence will win – on big decisions politicians think in 5 year terms, people think in lifetimes. “
I’m not sure I agree with that part. Most folks I know in my family think little more than their next payday.
@douglas clark
As I said in my initial post I am not against the notion of Independence – I think that there are real and legitimate reasons for wanting Scotland to be so.
Why I entered this forum was to comment on my disappointment at the view of the Nationalist. What the original blog was about was the positive case for the Union, which I thought was very articulately put forward.
When that blog was originally released, as stated, I was told that the bloggers opinions were not valid as he was English (the fact that he is of Scottish parents and born in Scotland seemed to matter not a jot). Equal amount of scorn was placed on this bog.
You ask for the positive case for the Union but then deride anything being put forward as the ‘same tired old rubbish’. Is there anything wrong with the argument that the Union has served us well since its inception and going forward it will continue to do so?
I am happy to debate the issues. It is very hard to do so by bashing away at a keyboard with faceless opponents That is why I attend discussions and talks with the likes of McAlpine as you get a human dimension – I am also a member of a debating club where we debate these issues, amongst others. I am fairly certain that SUTH would not have been so down right rude to me had we met face to face – so why is it acceptable via a keyboard?
My initial ‘list of issues’ were a snap shot. I was derided for my comments on the EU – fine. There are other ways you can have the benefit of trade with Europe without the restrictions imposed in being part of the EU. This would give you more of the Independence that you seek. More of the freedoms. What is the SNPs policy on the EU? They say we will remain in it in the short term and then the people of Scotland will decide.
It was put to me above that no country can ever be truly independent within a globalised world – to a certain extent I agree with this. There are, however, countries that are more independent than others. I highlighted the EU as the SNP seem to be painstaking stating that Scotland would automatically be part of the EU. Perhaps it would – my point is why would you want it to be. In my profession I see the influence of the ECHR daily. Scotland and the UK are influenced to a huge extent by being part of the EU.
I understand the notion of ‘the Scottish people will decide’, I get it. But the SNP are not a party who stands purely for Independence. They have have many other policies and have done relatively well since being in Holyrood. That is why it bothers me when they come out and say that we would retain the Monarchy – is that the view of the Membership, or is that a way of convincing the ‘undecided’ that nothing will change? In my opinion it is disingenuous. The Monarchy issue may be trivialised but it is an issue for some. You will see how important the Monarchy is to certain groups of people this year for the Jubilee.
I realise that things cannot remain the way they are given the support for the SNP and change. I am exploring and researching the potential of federalism within the UK.
Finally, independence is the SNP’s raison d’etre and has been since its inception and they still do not have a concrete idea of what an independent Scotland will look like (their shift on currency, to name one point). So, the Unionist camp can be forgiven for not having a perfectly ironed out manifesto on Unionism.
I tend to agree with sneekyboy, the arguments placed as union positives tend to lean toward independence negatives and rose tinted views of the past glories of empire. Always remember, if we look down that shared past history, that there is also another and far more negative view of that union which is equally as valid to recall and no I’m not thinking about blood soaked battlefields. A positive case for the union should look to the present and the future. As yet only the Scottish government has outlined a future vision worth voting for.
“Finally, independence is the SNP’s raison d’etre and has been since its inception and they still do not have a concrete idea of what an independent Scotland will look like (their shift on currency, to name one point). So, the Unionist camp can be forgiven for not having a perfectly ironed out manifesto on Unionism. “
Actually on the currency issue they did have a cast iron idea of what they would do but were usurped by other circumstances outside their control. I am still personally pro EU and pro Euro(even today) but understand a pragmatic wait and see approach. I think what I see from the Unionist camp on this aspect of policy is disappointment that the SNP haven’t given the Unionists a hook to hang themselves on.
My view of SNP policy based on what I have read and heard(not being a member) is as follows:-
Pro EU
Pro Monarchy but will probably put it to referendum.
Pro Euro but taking a wait and see approach and in meantime would look to stay in Sterling.
Anti WMD.
Smaller defence force.
Will encourage inward investment with lower corp tax.
Probably increase income tax but keep local taxes low.
So its not really short of substance at all, certainly no shorter than current UK policy.
“Is there anything wrong with the argument that the Union has served us well since its inception and going forward it will continue to do so?”
Yes, lots of things. Firstly, nationalists would hotly contest your basic premise – the Union has NOT served us well, certainly not in living memory. It has squandered Scotland’s wealth on creating one of the most unequal societies on the face of the planet and throwing our weight around in wars we have no business in, directly causing thousands and thousands of deaths and making us a terrorist threat. Secondly, by that “everything’s fine, why change?” doctrine we’d still be burning witches, hanging people for blasphemy and only letting landowners vote. Those who benefit from the status quo never see the point of change.
What you cite isn’t an “argument” at all – it’s an expression of blind faith, founded in something nationalists don’t believe was true to start with. If you wade into the debate spouting that as some sort of coherent rational position, don’t be surprised if you get rather short shrift from people who’ve largely been living and breathing the actual real arguments for half their lives.
How can a Eurosceptic be pro UK union……its a completely untenable stance. Just smacks of xenophobia.
@TheMaganator
To echo RevStu, you have to forgive us when we get annoyed when we see the same old ill informed and tired arguments being trotted out by Unionists as though they are some sort of killer blows when we’ve all been over these months if not years ago. I recommend you read the A to Z of Unionist Myths at the Newsnet Sotland site, which answers, or at very least refutes, the scaremongering and all those negative arguments against independence that pop up regularly.
Spot the difference! (RevStu – can you delete the first one (and this one) if you’ve time, ta).
manganator says:
It was put to me above that no country can ever be truly independent within a globalised world – to a certain extent I agree with this. There are, however, countries that are more independent than others.
That’s an interesting – relativising – point about the post-sovereign era, although maybe its just a truism.
Still, it is repeated in a sense in the Financial Times today by Martin Wolf, about American Independence, when he says:
“…is the future role of the US in its own hands? The answer is: yes, but only up to a point. The US can control what it does. But it cannot control what others do“.
Another interesting example of autonomous choice is Iceland. Economic catastrophe was supposed to entail the absolute demise of its autonomy, yet the Icelanders democratically chose for that not to happen, and they’re now (I understand) still well above the UK on most economic indicators.
“How can a Eurosceptic be pro UK union……its a completely untenable stance. Just smacks of xenophobia.”
It’s certainly an odd double standard. But I also think Magnus is just making a rod for his own back by firing in straight off with the UKIP “taking orders from Brussels” line. Speaking very generally, Scots hold UKIP in contempt – witness the party’s dismal showing in Scottish elections, whereas it gathered almost a million votes in England in 2010 – and see it as essentially a posh-people’s version of the BNP, so speaking their language is always going to be likely to prejudice your reception.
@TheMaganator May 16, 12.10
“We have a situation now in Scotland where Labour and the Tories are joining forces against you. I will not say whether I am on the left or right of that ‘alliance’ as either way you would no doubt deride me for it. Ask yourself why parties so ideologically opposed with each are now joining forces.”
What opposing ideologies? Both parties are neo-liberal. The following is a good summary of the ideological capture of the Labour party
http://rueclementmarot.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/chalk-and-cheese.html
“How can a Eurosceptic be pro UK union……its a completely untenable stance. Just smacks of xenophobia.”
It depends on whether you class yourself as being British or Scottish – I think this has been mentioned above. For me, I see myself as being British and then Scottish. I do not see the difference between Eng/Scot/Wales & NI. I see us all as being British first. That, I accept, is not a view held by many in Scotland although it is so by the vast majority of my friends. I should point out that I am not of the Rangers fan Orange Order ilk either – before I am accused of same. I do not see the Westminster government as ‘ruling’ over us Scots – that is not how I feel. We are all part of the same Union. I do not feel the oppressed by the UK – I appreciate that Nats do though.
“and see it as essentially a posh-people’s version of the BNP”
Firstly I do not like the term ‘posh person’. It is often used in a negative context and most often used to diminish a persons’ ability or understanding because of the way that they were raised. ‘What does he know, he is just a posh boy?!’ etc That seems to be acceptable nowadays – would it be acceptable to use the reverse ‘what does he know, he is just a working-class-X,Y or Z?’ Secondly UKIP is not a racist or xenophobic party (I do not and have never voted UKIP by the way). They just do not see the benefit of having restrictions based upon them by Brussels. The UK currently spends in the region of £45m per day to be a member of the EU.
However, I appreciate that this is not an EU debate – I have merely raised it as I do not think wanting an independent Scotland to be a part of the EU really fits the same narrative of being master of your own destiny. Will an independent Scotland have a ref on EU membership? Probably. That is not likely to take place for some time though so in the short to medium term Scotland will be part of the EU.
A to Z of Unionist Myths
Yes, I am aware of this. I have read it. It is extremely bias and one-sided. Especially the (broken record, I know) the Brussles section. It makes no mention of the power that Brussels does exert over the UK and an independent Scotland, merely what it does not do. Most pertinently, the 50p minimum price for alcohol (I am in favour of this but do not think that it begins to tackle the drink-culture in Scotland – but that discussion is for another day. Good on the SNP for pushing for it). This decision can be taken through the European courts. Would you prefer that decision to be challenged in Scotland and then to the Supreme Court (with Scottish influence) or decided in the courts of Europe? For me that is a no-brainer. The same has been seen on tobacco advertising.
I put the same value on the A-Z as you would if I started an A-Z of ‘Nationalist follies’, or the like.
I do not and have not ever asserted that my unionist peddlings are ‘killer-blows’.
Finally @Rev Stu – I appreciate that you may have used my first name in error. I would appreciate if if you would not also use my last name. I have a very limited degree of control over twitter and facebook – I enjoy no such control on this website. I do not intend to post anything that I would be ashamed of but I would rather maintain a degree of anonymity here – as I believe others have the right to do too. When faced with faceless and nameless posters on here I believe that I should have that same luxury afforded to me.
Oh and I have just realised that I have merely had a pop at the EU without offering an alternative. EFTA would be my suggestion for an Indy Scot – for what it is worth…
Longshanker says:
“My real worry about independence is the effect it will have on our neighbourly relations.”
That’s interesting. I think relations between England and Scotland will be much better after Scottish independence. England will have a more realistic idea of its reduced importance post empire, and Scotland will grow up and lose the (understandable) chip. So, for me this is one of the major pluses of independence, and I say that as one who is half Scot half English.
“I would appreciate if if you would not also use my last name.”
Of course. I wasn’t trying to “out” you or anything, I’m just a 44-year-old man and I dislike referring to other grown adults by internet nicknames if I can help it.
I really find that I’m British not Scottish thing really really unusual. I’m pretty well travelled and have lived abroad for the bulk of the last 15 years. I work for extended periods in mainly European countries and have met loads of British folks abroad and I have only ever met English folk who say they are British when asked by a local and usually when they hear me they inevitably then say they are English(not British).
I’m chuckling at this euroscepic chant of we give the EU £45M per day…..at the same time as you wax lyrical of the romantic benefits of the UK union you deride the whole EU on financial grounds. Can you not see the similarities of the situation for Scotland…8% of population, stuck up the north out the way , told what they can get from government…..Its just a small and more potent version of the EU which has had more time to mature. A 300 year EU if I must.
BTW I am a Rangers fan, I’m not too fussed on the monarchy(although I do like the Queen having ‘met‘ her twice) and would never dream of saying I’m British first unless under arrest abroad to make sure the correct embassy was contacted or if I was on a hijacked plane.
“deride the whole EU on financial grounds”
Not strictly true – see my post re the European courts.
“Of course. I wasn’t trying to “out” you or anything, I’m just a 44-year-old man and I dislike referring to other grown adults by internet nicknames if I can help it.
Many thanks
I see the EU are a milder and less influential version of Westminster and if anything more socially aligned to the population rather than the corporation…..
At the moment the mantra from London is we need less employment regulation to stimulate growth. My personal and prefessional experience is that employment law in the UK is already the simplest and easiest to work through. I’ve personally been involved in 4 restructurings where the eventual choice was close UK facility as its easier. It wasn’t linked to productivity or cost or social impact, purely down to being able to do it quick and easy.
When it comes to UK employees its very easy indeed, no works councils, no social plans and in most private corporations no trade unions to talk of….pick your folks and thats it. Statutory redundancy is lower in UK than anywhere else in EU and ditto for notice periods.
The only place I have personal experience of it being easier than the UK is the US.
Imagine someone shouting out in the middle of a biology lecture or debate “I DIDN’T COME FROM NO MONKEYS! LOOK AT BANANAS. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT WITH YOUR ‘SCIENCE’ HUH??? HUH?!?”. And so on.
That is what the average cyber unionist and this Maganator person is coming across like. To expect the aforementioned biologists to treat this sort of thing seriously (after having to put up with it for decades) and not pour scorn and contempt upon you is stretching it all a bit too far. You get what you deserve for blundering into that situation so poorly prepared. I’d be happily emptying a crate of rotten tomatoes and cabbages at you if you were on stage right now.
@Scott Minto
A “Velvet Divorce” would see assets and debts split along population lines. This has precident in other independence movements.
So does Balkanisation. It often depends on the resources to hand and the cultural outlook of the instigators. What indicators have you seen so far, which make you think that everything will be hunky dory? It seems pretty fractious and petty at the moment and we’re still only in the ‘phoney war’ phase.
RevStu saying that we have Trident as a trump card to play strikes me as insular and myopic. The wishes of America/International Community/NATO will play a bigger role in the nuclear decision. That’s why I think there will be an SNP change of policy on NATO/Trident way before the referendum (apologies for going over old ground). Otherways American displeasure could be yet another elephant to enter the room.
@Colin Dunn
“That’s interesting. I think relations between England and Scotland will be much better after Scottish independence.”
Potentially – certainly if it was indeed a ‘velvet divorce’. But not at this moment in time. Britain is in such dire straits that to take away oil revenues will leave rUK in dire straits. They cannot afford to have that happen.
As the McCrone report alludes to, force COULD be used against the perceived ‘greedy’ Scots. Thatcher’s Tories and Blair’s New Labour squandered oil and used it as a prop for bolstering their corrupting policies.
Westminster needs oil revenues as a matter of necessity. The house of cards is probably coming down anyway. No more oil revenues would hasten the demise. They will not allow that to happen without a nasty, fearful and potentially vicious fight.
I genuinely hope I’m wrong and I’ve been roundly ridiculed here and elsewhere for voicing it, but hey, there’s always the story of the emperor and his new clothes to fall back on.
“RevStu saying that we have Trident as a trump card to play strikes me as insular and myopic.”
The words you’re looking for are “factual” and “pragmatic”.
“The wishes of America/International Community/NATO will play a bigger role in the nuclear decision.”
No they won’t. Let’s just get this clear – you’re saying the wishes of, say, France, will be MORE important in the decision than what Westminster wants? Sober up. But in any case, everyone you mention wants exactly the same thing Westminster does – Trident staying online continuously. Trident will stay for a few years, until the rUK builds a replacement Coulport. Scotland will extract VERY sizeable concessions for that. Believing anything else is naive to the point where it morphs into plain dumb.
@Appleby
Charming, as ever.
I admit I did blunder my way into this forum somewhat – you will see from my initial post that the reason that I posted was to voice my displeasure at the attitude of the Nationalist to anything coming from the Unionist camp.
What was of particular annoyance was the description of Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Rory Stewart as ‘non-entities’ and the treatment of Mr Marrs’ blog piece.
Feel free to lob your rotten tomatoes.
“The wishes of America/International Community/NATO will play a bigger role in the nuclear decision. That’s why I think there will be an SNP change of policy on NATO/Trident way before the referendum (apologies for going over old ground). Otherways American displeasure could be yet another elephant to enter the room.”
Haven’t got time to re-engage with the debate right now, but basically: my thoughts exactly. The Americans – the principal NATO member – would surely never tolerate the SNP using a keystone element of its ‘nuclear umbrella’ as a means of blackmailing the rUK government? The very notion seems absurd to me; extorting apparently unlimited (or indeed any) concessions from the rUK government, on pain of what? Dismantling Trident? Pulling the base apart brick by brick? Denying entry/exit? Taking it over completely? Think about it! It’s not going to happen, and all sides know this.
(Of course, I say this as someone who has been lifelong totally opposed to nuclear weapons and an advocate of unilateral disarmament on the part of the UK, despite this being deeply unfashionable politically. But I guess that is besides the point).
The metaphorical “lobbing of rotten tomatoes” will serve neither side of the debate, and is completely unnecessary – and undesirable.
Britain is in such dire straits that to take away oil revenues will leave rUK in dire straits. They cannot afford to have that happen.
As the McCrone report alludes to, force COULD be used against the perceived ‘greedy’ Scots. Thatcher’s Tories and Blair’s New Labour squandered oil and used it as a prop for bolstering their corrupting policies.
Westminster needs oil revenues as a matter of necessity. The house of cards is probably coming down anyway. No more oil revenues would hasten the demise. They will not allow that to happen without a nasty, fearful and potentially vicious fight.
There’s a lot of truth in that. I wouldn’t say it’s inevitable, but it’s a scenario that should at least be looked at seriously.
If Westminster had taken the oil revenues, maximised them, and used them for the benefit of everyone on these islands, I don’t think we’d be where we are now. We were told in the 1970s that it was greedy and selfish to want to keep Scotland’s assets for ourselves, and nice children share. That argument had some effect at the time. If this had been followed up by wise and equitable use of the revenues, with poverty and deprivation tackled and all corners of Great Britain seeing tangible benefits, it would be far more difficult to argue for independence in 2012.
That didn’t happen. The oil was practically given away, realising far less than it might have done, in deference to Thatcher’s get-rich-quick free-market ideology. The revenues that did accrue were used, as Longshanker outlines, for vanity projects in the south-east of England, and to pay the unemployment benefits necessitated by the closing of Scotland’s heavy industry. We were made into benefits scroungers with our own money.
How can anyone in possession of the facts now call Scots “greedy” for wanting to terminate this arrangement? As Angus Robertson said to the SNP conference in 2011, they got the first 40 years of the oil revenues, it’s up to us to make sure they don’t get the next 40 years worth. Nevertheless, acquaintance with the facts is not exactly common currency.
I think the use of force is unlikely. Nevertheless Westminster is going to play very dirty indeed in the run-up to the referendum, and Longshanker has encapsulated the reasons for this. There’s an essay on NNS covering much the same ground. http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4978-scottish-independence-the-dark-side
Is this a reason to cave in and submit to continued Westminster rule, and existence on increasingly meagre handouts from an increasingly bankrupt UK Treasury, or is it a reason to redouble our efforts?
“The Americans – the principal NATO member – would surely never tolerate the SNP using a keystone element of its ‘nuclear umbrella’ as a means of blackmailing the rUK government?”
Oh god, the delusion of the “special relationship” again. Britain’s tiddly handful of nukes mean absolutely nothing to the US, strategically speaking, and there’s currently nobody to have a strategy against anyway. They won’t give a shit.
“on pain of what? Dismantling Trident? Pulling the base apart brick by brick? Denying entry/exit?“
There you go. Breaking news: you can’t just go parking your military forces in someone else’s country against their will. That’s called “invasion”. Here’s how the conversation goes:
rUK: We’re not giving you any concessions. Let us keep Trident in your country anyway.
SCOTLAND: Go fuck yourselves. Get it out today or we’re barricading the ports. Attempting to violate our sovereign territory by bringing it back in will by any recognised definition of the term be an act of war. See how that goes down with Russia and China at the UN.
rUK: But we haven’t got anywhere else to put it!
SCOTLAND: And that’s our problem why, exactly? Removal of Trident has been our official policy for 30 years – you’ve had plenty of time to make contingency plans.
rUK: Um, about those concessions.
Stuart, if you honestly think that the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent (sited much closer to potential foe nations than those of the US) mean nothing to NATO and the Americans – despite being pretty much Europe’s sole nuclear deterrent together with France’s – then you’re very much mistaken in my opinion.
You seem to think that the Scots could simply deny rUK’s access to the whole facility (enough firepower to destroy the entire World – so much for “tiddly handful of nukes”, with their MIRV capability to destroy perhaps 10-15 entire cities, per missile), on pain of “concessions”. Sorry, but that is just laughably naive in my view – and very dangerous. These things are very easy to say on pseudo political blogs, two-dimensionally and in playground politics style, but I seriously doubt that AS, intelligent politician that he is, would even countenance such a move in reality, post the inevitable quiet briefings on the subject that will doubtless ensue, assuming they haven’t happened already.
Rule Number 1: Don’t start what you can’t finish.
Rule Number 2: Choose your enemies wisely.
In any event, access by air would still be perfectly possible (and from sea also, no doubt). Unless you’re suggesting Scotland would shoot down rUK aircraft and sink its warships to deny it access to the base? Yeah, I can just see that happening.
I’m not suggesting that rUK would have carte blanche to stay as long as they liked, but the timetable for any such departure would be reasonable, to allow for construction/planning, and largely of rUK’s choosing. I’d work on a figure of 10 years.
“Europe’s sole nuclear deterrent together with France’s”
So not “sole”, then?
“You seem to think that the Scots could simply deny rUK’s access to the whole facility”
Yes, I do. There’s quite a compelling reason for that belief, too – it’s in Scotland. Have you just unilaterally abandoned the entire concept of national sovereignty?
Oh, and if you honestly think Trident could “destroy the entire world”, you really need to go and do some reading. It’d struggle to destroy the whole of Bulgaria. In nuclear terms it really is tiny potatoes.
If it makes you happy to simply nitpick over my clumsy use of terminology or whatever, rather than to address anything, then fine. Knock yourself out.
(I’m vaguely intrigued by “pseudo political”, though.)
” Yes, I do. There’s quite a compelling reason for that belief, too – it’s in Scotland. Have you just unilaterally abandoned the entire concept of national sovereignty? ”
It’s called real politik, especially where the principal nuclear base “defending” the whole of Europe is concerned. As I’ve said, I would’ve binned Trident many years ago, with or without the support of the Scots, but that’s besides the point. So are the niceties of the national sovereignty of small Nation States come to that (IMO), where things like this are concerned. What I would *like* (or think Scotland is perfectly entitled to do) has nothing to do with this; it’s all about what I think would actually transpire, given the interested parties involved and the way the world actually works.
As far as the supposed puny capabilities of Trident are concerned, according to Wiki, the UK has 160 thermonuclear H-bomb warheads all of which can be launched via a single Trident sub, each warhead capable of destroying a city. So I don’t know about you, but the power to wholly destroy and render uninhabitable for millenia 160 major cities (not to mention catastrophic, global fall-out) certainly takes the rough edges off a weekend, if not actually the complete end of the entire human civilisation. It’s close enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme
I should mention as well that the actual capabilities of Trident, as a military system, are vastly higher than this as well.
“(I’m vaguely intrigued by “pseudo political”, though.)”
I’m not trying to be wilfully insulting here, but I’m sorry mate, saying stuff like Scotland could hold the entire rUK – and NATO – to ransom over its “jewel in the crown” military installation, getting whatever it wants simply by locking the doors to it or blocking roads//whatever, *is* pseudo politics IMO – the stuff of animated, post-prandial bar chats, not serious political discussion.
“rather than to address anything”
Sigh. Not for the first time, let me help reduce the embarrassing magnitude of your ignorance a little:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme
“Under the programme, the Royal Navy operates 58 nuclear-armed Trident II D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and around 200 nuclear warheads”
So just under four warheads per missile, not “10 to 15”.
“At least one of these submarines is always on patrol as a continuous at-sea deterrent, armed with up to 16 Trident missiles and around 48 nuclear warheads, although each submarine can carry up to 192 nuclear warheads with 12 warheads per missile. This is to be reduced to 8 missiles per boat, with a total of 40 warheads per boat, as a result of the 2010 Strategic Defence Review”
For Trident’s entire lifespan to date, “at least one” has meant “exactly one”. So a total of (at most) 40 warheads on just eight missiles are the ACTUAL available force at any one time.
“Most of the weapons have a yield of 80-100 kilotons, although there has been speculation that some missiles may be armed with a single low-yield nuclear warhead of 10-15 kilotons”
80-100 kilotons is a teeny tiny warhead by modern standards. It’s only about five times the size of the 1945 bombs dropped on Japan. You wouldn’t want one going off in your back garden, but you’d certainly need more than one to destroy any large, heavily-built-up, densely-packed modern city that wasn’t made of wood and paper like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. Until last year the USA’s armoury contained bombs with a yield of 9,000 kilotons.
Most warheads would of course in reality be used on military targets anyway. So if the UK was for some unaccountable reason to declare war on Bulgaria, our sole active-service Trident sub might, just, have enough spare warheads to flatten Sofia, Dobrich and Plovdiv. And while I’m sure that’d be a bad day for the residents of those cities, and a slightly wider area within fallout range, it’s some distance short of “the entire world”. Your jingoism about BRITAIN’S MIGHTY FIST is therefore rather misplaced.
Nonsense, as per usual. Ranks right alongside your infamous revisionist theories of gravity and acceleration, or whatever it was.
100,000 tonnes of TNT (that’s 134,000 750kg WW2 style bombs) wouldn’t be enough to destroy a city? Not to mention the (lasting) radiation, contamination and immense blast wave? Yeah, right.
As for “jingoism”, what a crock – how dare you. I have repeatedly said that I abhor all nuclear weapons personally, including the UK’s. Still, handy for you to put me in that box (after nitpicking over typos or whatever).
“Pseudo” actually seems really rather generous.
“saying stuff like Scotland could hold the entire rUK – and NATO – to ransom over its “jewel in the crown” military installation, getting whatever it wants simply by locking the doors to it or blocking roads//whatever, *is* pseudo politics IMO – the stuff of animated, post-prandial bar chats, not serious political discussion.”
Sigh. Perhaps you’d find the Telegraph a more agreeable source?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9043092/Nuclear-subs-will-stay-in-Scotland-Royal-Navy-chiefs-decide.html
“The Daily Telegraph understands that recent internal discussions at the Ministry of Defence have concluded that a Scottish declaration of independence would effectively leave the UK’s nuclear weapons based in a foreign country for several years. The prospect was described by a senior military source as “the nightmare scenario” for commanders overseeing the nuclear deterrent and for UK ministers negotiating with a new Scottish government.
The MoD believes Faslane’s facilities could be replicated at an existing English naval base. But the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport is unique in the UK. It is equipped with highly specialised and sensitive equipment for safely moving missiles and warheads and incorporates hardened concrete bunkers to store them.
A source said: “Berths would not be a problem – there are docks on the south coast that could be used without too much fuss. But there simply isn’t anywhere else where we can do what we do at Coulport, and without that, there is no deterrent. Maintaining the deterrent is the first priority for any UK government, so ministers in London would have to pay Salmond any price to ensure we kept access to [the Clyde bases]. It would be an unbelievable nightmare.””
Tip: having at least a basic idea of what you’re talking about is a good idea before you go wading into subjects you know nothing of and insulting people who’ve done the research.
“A source”, eh? Wow, some anonymous person’s (anecdotal) opinion, as quoted as a near footnote, in a newspaper whose job it is to generate salacious, sensationalist headlines.
Yup, that’s me told. I bow humbly to your “research”; thanks for the tip. 🙄
“100,000 tonnes of TNT (that’s 134,000 750kg WW2 style bombs) wouldn’t be enough to destroy a city”
Absolutely nowhere near enough (from a single explosion point) for any medium-sized modern city, no. It’d certainly make a heck of a mess, but wouldn’t come anywhere close to utterly destroying it. I don’t have all day spare to walk you through Nuclear Weapons 101, go do your own homework.
Hiroshima’s A-bomb yield was 13-18kT, and flattened a large city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
So something up to 8 times as large wouldn’t come close to utterly destroying a medium sized city? As ever, your sums don’t add up.
““A source”, eh? Wow, some anonymous person’s (anecdotal) opinion, as quoted as a near footnote, in a newspaper whose job it is to generate salacious, sensationalist headlines.”
Yawn. Exactly the sort of tedious sophistry that’s made you such a chore to deal with for the last decade. Please, do feel free to go and find ANY source ANYWHERE that thinks Trident could be moved to another location in the UK within a decade.
Your idea that all national sovereignty would bow to “realpolitik” and the rUK would simply impose its nuclear deterrent on a foreign country against its will is perhaps the most moronic thing you’ve ever said.
It’s embarrassingly easy to illustrate that assertion – all you need to do is picture France, say, deciding it was going to park its nukes in Switzerland, or Spain, despite those countries refusing their permission. Or the US waking up one morning, driving all its missiles to Canada or Mexico and saying “We’re just going to leave these here, and operate them from your soil with our army/navy whether you like it or not”.
You truly think “realpolitik” would let that happen? That’s your position? Don’t be a complete fucking arsehole all your life, eh?
OK. I’ve nothing further to add.
“and flattened a large city.”
Sigh. A large city MADE OF WOOD AND PAPER. Little Boy didn’t “flatten” Hiroshima, it burned it down. There’s a difference.
“At Hiroshima, severe structural damage to buildings extended about 1 mile (1.6 km) in radius from ground zero, making a circle of destruction 2 miles (3.2 km) in diameter. The blast sent out a hyper-intensified shock wave which travelled at (slightly above) the speed of sound, turning buildings into shrapnel. There was little or no structural damage outside of this one-mile (1.6 km) radius.”
Sofia is about eight miles across. Central Moscow is closer to 20. Trident’s warheads are bigger, but modern cities are built far more strongly than Hiroshima. Did you never hear the story of the Three Little Pigs?
And one more:
http://ram3.chem.sunysb.edu/nucwww/info/nucbomb1.shtml
“The estimates for a city of one million or two million struck by a single one-megaton bomb are that around one third of the inhabitants would be killed instantly or fatally injured, one third seriously injured, and the rest uninjured or only slightly injured.”
So that’s a third of the population of a medium-sized city uninjured or only slightly injured, from a warhead TEN TIMES the size of one of Trident’s. Still, the guy who wrote that is only “a medical radiotherapist (now retired), who also has an honours degree in physics. He has been a member of the Boards of CPPNW, World Federalists of Canada, and Science for Peace; and is also an active member of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, and Project Ploughshares””, so what the fuck would HE know about it?
Whatever, Stuart. I see you’re getting angry and that is NOT my intention and nor is it why I am here. So following your earlier post, I am leaving it at that. Make of that what you will.
As a counter to the Telegraph article cited above, quoting the MoD spokesman saying that England would have to pay any price demanded to keep Trident where it is for the next ten years, I heard an interesting take from a unionist contributor to Newsnight (cunningly disguised as an impartial academic).
This bod, whose identity I forget, insisted that overall Trident would be the SNP’s headache because an independent England wouldn’t want to remain a nuclear state anyway, would take this opportinuty to divest itself of its nuclear capability, and would simply leave the missiles at Coulport with a little note saying “we don’t want them, they’re on your territory, over to you”.
The willingness of “independent academic commentators” to twist everything and dream up the most unlikely scenarios so that the independence side appears at a disadvantage never ceases to amaze me.
“I am leaving it at that”
How I wish I could believe that this time.
RevStu, considering it takes about five minutes for the edit box to appear if one wants to fix a typo, with the browser freezing and the little box that says “stack overflow at line 3” and so on, don’t you think a bit more time for the edit window would help?
I’ll bump it up to 10.
“This bod, whose identity I forget, insisted that overall Trident would be the SNP’s headache because an independent England wouldn’t want to remain a nuclear state anyway, would take this opportinuty to divest itself of its nuclear capability, and would simply leave the missiles at Coulport with a little note saying “we don’t want them, they’re on your territory, over to you”.”
That’s hilarious. To point out just the most obvious of the many gaping flaws in that reasoning, such actions would be a colossal breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. How on Earth does anyone that dim get themselves deemed an “expert”?
Morag, at 1;22pm
Perhaps we could wind up Caveman by suggesting putting them on e-bay?
“How I wish I could believe that this time”
Whatever, you odious, embittered little man.
“Perhaps we could wind up Caveman by suggesting putting them on e-bay?”
Yeah, that would really “wind me up”, especially since I’d have got rid of them 20 years ago – as stated.
But whatever, I’ll not intrude on your little circle jerk any further. Knock yourselves out.
“Whatever, you odious, embittered little man.”
…and those hopes get cruelly smashed once more.
Perhaps I haven’t made myself clear, astonishing as that would seem to any passing observer. After our last exchange on Wings Over Sealand, in which your behaviour disgusted me far beyond any run-of-the-mill internet flame war nonsense, I said in no uncertain terms that you were not welcome on any site of mine. I’ve barely posted on WoSland since, because you’ve all but obliterated my desire to write a blog that would provide entertainment to anyone so contemptible.
When you showed up here – to goodness knows what purpose, because as far as I know you have no dog in the fight over who governs Scotland – I repeated that statement numerous times. You kept promising to, if not actually fuck off, at least remain silent, only to repeatedly break that promise on some flimsy justification or other.
You then asked if you could submit a piece for publication, offering an alternative viewpoint. I said I’d consider it in the same way I’d consider any other – which remains the case, because if you write anything that readers might find enlightening about the opposing view then it’s worth publishing. I have no desire for Wings Over Scotland to preach solely to the converted, as that would be pointless – hence my attempts to reach out to the wider audience, publishing posts by “Don’t know”s and setting up The Straight Debates (the second of which is currently in progress).
For some unaccountable reason you took that as an invitation to also post in comments again, which it certainly wasn’t, but given how futile it’s always been to point that out (see above) I couldn’t be bothered trying. I did my best to just ignore you instead, but today’s comments were just TOO stupid to let remain unchallenged, and now I’ve wasted half a day of my life on you again, which makes me sad and angry at myself.
Entirely regardless of political differences, you’re an unpleasant human being. I don’t want you in my comments threads. It’s nothing to do with dissenting views – it’s not your views I object to, but your conduct. I’m at a loss as to how I could possibly have expressed that any more unambiguously, but there you go.
And what is it that I’ve supposed to have done that was so utterly abhorrent then? Sorry – and genuinely – I am at a TOTAL loss here??
Link??
Or email me off forum??
@TheMaganator
Do you actually have a positive case for the union or any counter arguments on the topic or are you here to moan about the big boys at school being mean to you? If you do then post them, otherwise…not much point pretending you’ve got a stake in the debate.
Ok no explanation, but it doesn’t matter I guess. I really had no idea you held me in such deep contempt. Feel free to delete my posts, or not, or reply to this with a trademark sardonic reposte – whatever mate. You’re right; there is no possible reason to hang around, especially if in so doing that is causing actual distress and hurt.
What? Did I miss it? I went and got popcorn and everything.
@Morag
“Is this a reason to cave in and submit to continued Westminster rule, and existence on increasingly meagre handouts from an increasingly bankrupt UK Treasury, or is it a reason to redouble our efforts?”
The perception of the Scots as ‘greedy’ is also alluded to in McCrone, so it’s not me that’s saying it, merely a perception which I believe could be exploited by Westminster incumbents.
It shouldn’t be forgotten that Gordon Brown used the Terrorist act to huckle Iceland’s banks during the banking crisis. I can envision it being used for some imagined ‘threat’ on/from Scotland. That’s why statements about airports being bombed genuinely worry me. Iraq proves what these guys are capable of in the name of oil and Haliburton contracts.
Again, probably unlikely, but not outwith the realms of feasible possibility.
@RevStu
You said:
“Believing anything else is naive to the point where it morphs into plain dumb ”
Professor Chalmers Research Director / Director, UK Defence Policy Studies said:
“After many years of opposing membership, however, it may not find it easy to move in this direction. A Scotland in NATO would have to endorse a Strategic Concept that states that ‘as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance’ and goes on to agree that ‘the supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States’ ”
“The reaction of US opinion, in particular, would be likely to be hostile, with potentially serious consequences for Scotland’s hopes of a smooth transition to being recognised as a ‘normal’ member of the international community of states.”
So point out for me where Professor Chalmers is being naive morphing into plain dumb.
And yet, somehow, Iceland has got itself out of its mess and set on the path to recovery, and nobody bombed its airports.
It’s almost as if a small country without pretensions to be a global superpower is better equipped to handle rapidly changing circumstances and turn events to its own advantage.
@Morag
And yet, somehow, Iceland has got itself out of its mess and set on the path to recovery, and nobody bombed its airports.
It’s getting sued by the UK and the Netherlands though. Quite a turnaround from back in the day when Iceland was going to sue the UK for the use of the Terrorism act against it. It’s still way too early to say they’re clear and in the land of milk and honey. Litigation like this is another form of force.
Good luck to them though.
Ten Good Reasons To Believe in the Union: –
A system of political cohesiveness that provides stability but retains the flexibility to act quickly and decisively in times of crisis;
An economic risk transfer mechanism;
A cooperative of political, social and cultural values;
A shared history and destiny;
An objective actively sought by Scots since 1604 and fashioned by Scots since that date;
A pool of shared social aspirations that has virtually eradicated absolute poverty;
A pool of shared political values that has nurtured and cherished democracy;
A taproot of financial innovation;
A shared legal vision;
“Hath He not made us all in one island, compassed with one sea and of itself by nature indivisible.”
By complete contrast, is there a nationalist capable of advising what it is that Scotland can achieve as an independent nation it cannot achieve as part of the Union?
“A shared history and destiny;”
Um, that’s not a reason to believe, that’s a statement of fact. History is history, and our destiny will only be shared if we choose it to be. Scotland and England’s “political, social and cultural values” grow further and further apart every year.
And criminy, you don’t half tail off badly after that one. A “shared legal vision”? You DO know that Scotland and England have NEVER shared a legal system, right?