| Topic: Unionist regime in Scotland |
|---|
| 81. Author: wee eck Date: Wed 29th May 2024. 23:12 That`s an interesting intervention. How would England earn the right to have a referendum on Scottish independence? Reply |
| 82. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 00:27 Tad - I do like the level of attempted conflation there - kinda reminds me of how the Israelis propagate the myth that "Jewish" is an ethnicity when it is in fact a faith with 4 distinctive ethnicities that practice it. Your silence about the actions of Likud really is just tacit approval of genocide - I guess you must be a WASP. Personally, I value the "Supremity of Law" but with that in mind, the basis of reasoning for creating laws must be reasonable. In my view, many of the injustices both contemporary and history in our legal system (such as inequality for women, criminalisation of homosexuality etc) stem from the fact that Scots law was - and arguably still is - based on Canon Law which finds its origins in the Church. If you study Chemistry or Physics to any decent level then you realise two key things: (i) The sheer scale of the Universe (ii) The timelines outlines in the Talmud, Bible and Quran are simply impossible. A little bit of Astrophysics combined with a bit Chemical Kinetics and Thermodynamics shows quite clearly that the likelihood of the Abrahamic religions being "the truth" is nigh on zero. These religions are mythologies and should be treated as such, pure and simple. They should be nowhere near bodies with legislative power. Thankfully, in Scotland, Christianity is getting the elbow rather quickly and is dying out in the same way as British Unionism, albeit probably quicker. Unlike religion, Scotland is a tangible entity that has evolved and been defined over a period of time longer than a Millenium, whether you like it or not. Can something not be said about the faith you place in a failing state that willingly voted to economically sanction itself? I If we`re talking faith, then personally I have faith that Scotland would do far better standing with the 450Mn of the EU than a declining England of 55Mn. In honesty though, that is more a hypothesis based on reason rather than faith, unlike your position which really isn`t grounded in reality. Post Edited (Thu 30 May 00:38) Reply |
| 83. Author: Tad Allagash Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 13:42 ‘I guess you must be a WASP.’ You guess wrong. ‘Scotland is a tangible entity’ No, Scotland is defined by an imaginary line on a map. The island of Great Britain is a tangible entity unless you’re a geography denier. Your pro EU (established 1993) argument is odd when you’ve dismissed the UK on the basis that it’s only been around since 1707. Reply |
| 84. Author: wee eck Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 13:52 Aren`t most of the nations in the world defined by `imaginary lines on a map`? Apart from points scoring I don`t see what that adds to the debate. Reply |
| 85. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 14:09 Not desperate wee eck – bemused and a little frustrated perhaps. One of the arguments for devolution was a response to the notional democratic deficit – so now we can have our own policies on healthcare and education and so on (and have our very own scandals, like choosing to prosecute and convict lots of innocent post-masters and -mistresses and do nothing about it for years – but I guess we could have done that without devolution). But we seem to be arguing over two similar propositions: The first states: “if a part of a country consistently votes differently from the rest then that part has the option of independence as a solution to this democratic deficit”. The second states; “if a part of a country consistently votes differently from the rest then that part has the option of independence as a solution to this democratic deficit”. Now, you seem to be advocating for the first (or possibly the second) but were I to propose the other, you find it impossible to engage, deeming it unworthy of a response. Do you see my point? Reply |
| 86. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 14:13 HJ I was crediting you with making a point but it turns out it was me after all. Well done me. Are you saying that some people are prone to conditioning and others are largely immune? I think my point is rather that the Scots and the English are very similar, and that any differences are no longer enough on their own to justify independence. But I think your argument is that people who live in Scotland are significantly different from those who live in England? I know I’m old but I don’t remember much of the pre-union days. It seems such a long time ago now – but some of their influence must have dissipated. I note your argument on Scottishness; I tend to agree, but perhaps it’s one of those things that is up to the individual. And as an aside, I’ve never particularly understood the “half-Scottish” argument – if both your parents are English and you are born and raised in Scotland are you 100% English? Does grand-parentage come into it? I’ve always maintained that Scotland is of strategic importance to the UK, but more in a geographical way. I don’t see why NATO should be particularly interested in the economics for example. But you are introducing the “England steals our resources” argument. Who is England here? Is there a secret English government sending people over the border, stuffing their vans full of our wind and smuggling it south under cover of darkness? Reply |
| 87. Author: wee eck Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 14:58 `But we seem to be arguing over two similar propositions: The first states: “if a part of a country consistently votes differently from the rest then that part has the option of independence as a solution to this democratic deficit”. The second states; “if a part of a country consistently votes differently from the rest then that part has the option of independence as a solution to this democratic deficit”. Now, you seem to be advocating for the first (or possibly the second) but were I to propose the other, you find it impossible to engage, deeming it unworthy of a response. Do you see my point?` I presume this is your clever (?) way of restating your argument that Scotland voting differently from England is no different from any region of the UK voting differently (from what? What would you consider the norm?) which should entitle them to independence. I don`t remember this argument being put forward during the 2014 referendum or since. Maybe even the most fervent Unionist recognises it as nonsense as these regions aren`t parties in their own right to the Treaty of Union which is the basis of our `precious union` of equals. Reply |
| 88. Author: Parboiled Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 16:18 Education, Health, agriculture, fisheries and other matters were never devolved, they were always fully under control of the old Scottish office. And managed a hell of lot better than now… Reply |
| 89. Author: wee eck Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 16:35 The public complains about these departments throughout the UK though, not just in Scotland. Doesn`t that suggest devolution isn`t the main problem? In some parts of England they seem to think devolution is part of the answer. Reply |
| 90. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 16:44 Hasn`t the unelected Foreign Secretary, Cameron not just stuck his nose in some fisheries agreement between Scotland and Ireland? Reply |
| 91. Author: Tad Allagash Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 19:12 Yes Eck, most of the nation states in the world are indeed defined by imaginary lines on a map. For instance, it’s not all that clear where Belgium ends and the Netherlands begin, and in that case there are enclaves on either side of the arbitrary border. And I’m sure you don’t consider Berwick Rangers a foreign football team. Yet nationalists act like borders came down on a tablet from Mount Sinai and every other argument they make else is downstream of that. Reply |
| 92. Author: wee eck Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 19:22 Berwick has been in England for my lifetime and seems happy to be there. What exactly is the point of arguing about that? In my experience Unionists come up with all sorts of spurious arguments to deny folk who live in Scotland the exclusive right to vote on who should govern them. I once had a guy tell me that the Darien Scheme proved that Scots were unable to run their own affairs! Reply |
| 93. Author: jake89 Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 20:35 Scotland has a very clearly defined boundary and has done for longer than anyone on this forum has been alive. However, there does appear to be confusion between the original Scottish boundary, which was largely north and west modern Scotland and what Scotland is now, which combines areas that were part of the Pictish Kingdom (Fife) and Northumbria (Lothians and much of the Borders). This is, as usual, just whitabootery though. There are some basic facts here though: Scottish independence has been sought for decades albeit not ever by a majority so therefore it`s right this hasn`t happened. Information about Scotland`s wealth has continually been hidden/misrepresented. Most Scots whether pro or anti independence don`t have a clue why they`re voting that way. Despite what is reported in the press, the Scottish Government is doing a good job in comparison to the other UK nations. Reply |
| 94. Author: wee eck Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 20:39 Just had a guy at the door trying to persuade me to vote Labour. I think I made it clear to him how I`d be voting. Reply |
| 95. Author: jake89 Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 21:27 It`s a hard one. Labour seem intent on throwing it away though. Reply |
| 96. Author: hurricane_jimmy Date: Thu 30th May 2024. 22:40 Tad - So we`re into the realms of calling nation states imaginary if part of their frontier is a land border? I guess I just imagined my visit to Switzerland and that the ancient civilisations like the Mongolians and the Magyars of Hungary are as factual as the Abrahamic texts? C`mon min! 🤣 MCT - I did not claim anyone was immune - You were the one that inferred pro-independence supporters had been conditioned into thinking they are different. You did however pay no attention to the fact that your generation has basically lived in a pro-UK echo chamber. As I`ve said before, I do think younger generations are better at dissemination of information and identifying credible sources because such practice is part of the History and Modern Studies curriculum in Scotland. That wasn`t the case before the internet age. As for cultural similarities, you could very much argue the same about much of Europe - English is just "b-stardised" German afterall. Why doesn`t the UK just join up with Germany or the rest of Europe and form a superstate...hang oan a minute.... For me, Scotland should be an Independent state because progression toward the level of Social Democracy that many Scots desire - 80%ish going by the cumulative vote for SNP, Labour & LD - is not possible under the UK/English (They are pretty much synonymous) banner be that under a Tory or Labour government, albeit to varying degrees. The yo-yoing between governments with different fiscal ideology seen in the UK does not provide the same stability observed in other countries such as Sweden or Denmark where it is pretty much unthinkable for any party remove things like Healthcare or Tuition-free education and it instead perpetuates the idea that "the middle classes are punished". Scotland has a history of nationhood equal to that of Denmark and almost double that of Sweden. I can tell you from first hand experience that Swedes and Danes in particular both have higher living standards than Scots. If the UK functioned as well as Unionists claim then, with of the resources the UK has, it should be able to better the living standards of Denmark. The reality is it doesn`t, nor is there the political or societal will in England to make that the case. Scotland should not settle for mediocrity. You might want to do a wee bit of reading on how reliant Northern England is on Scottish water and Scottish-generated electricity. Scottish consumers are paying far more than they really should for energy in an energy-rich country that also produces a significant amount of that from renewable sources. Scotland should be profiting from those exports rather than Scottish consumers being penalised. Reply |
| 97. Author: LochgellyAlbert Date: Fri 31st May 2024. 00:39 hurricane_jimmy, Thu 30 May 22:40l And there lies the crux of the matter, all benefits heading South! Reply |
| 98. Author: Parboiled Date: Fri 31st May 2024. 07:16 What a binge fest of whinge and cringe! Reply |
| 99. Author: jake89 Date: Fri 31st May 2024. 07:20 Parboiled, Fri 31 May 07:16 Translation: I don`t like facts, I like sensationalised, made up nonsense that I can get angry about whilst eating my Spoons breakfast. Reply |
| 100. Author: McCaig`s Tower Date: Fri 31st May 2024. 20:16 wee eck You seem unable or unwilling to entertain my simple proposition in its generality, but instead insist that a condition be added (namely reference to the Treaty of Union) making it very specific. It is clearly possible for other constitutional or governance arrangements to be created for parties who were not signatories to the Treaty. Are you saying that Wales cannot be independent? Or Ireland? (Might be a bit late on that one...). London shouldn’t have an assembly? Fife shouldn’t have a council? Your argument seems to rely on Scottish Exceptionalism. Many borders are fairly arbitrary. Some (particularly in Africa and Asia), were literally drawn on a map. There is a story of Stalin putting his thumb on a plan so the cartographers had to draw round it, meaning Russian could effectively annex a valuable bit of Finland, I think it was. Some are based on geography, like rivers, or mountains, but they are otherwise not physical – although the SNP would seem happy to make them so. The public complains about these departments throughout the UK though, not just in Scotland. Maybe we’re not so different after all… Reply |