Where was the uproar in this country when the Catalans were denied the vote? If it happened in a non-white country those politicians wouldn't care, just as they also don't care about what happens in mostly white countries.
Nicola Sturgeon and Scottish Independence
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
This isn’t a union, it’s a prison. A racist, Tory, neoliberal, hellscape that celebrates failure and incompetence as long as it looks like a Union Jack just skunked on it.
Can you guys name many countries where a state/province etc can simply declare repeat independence referenda without the consent of the central government?
Not with those sausage fingers he wont.
Sorry to spoil your day but he's had those weird hands for decades. He'll probably live to 90, which as we know is more than double the life expectancy of the average Scot.
Well, I'll take dying at 45 with a pizza crunch hanging out my mouth and never having raped kids over dying at 90, raping kids, being surrounded by cnuts who rape kids, protecting cnuts who rape kids and having a fecking melt down at a pen. But you enjoy your salad, mate.
Don't think so, Jeremy Corbyn's nailed on for president I've heard.
The country isn’t the same as it was in 2014. In any case, how many more elections do the SNP need to win before it’s not ‘stupid’ to ask the question again? If they go into the next GE on a mandate based solely around Independence, what do you think then? It’s clear you would not support Indy but when would you say it becomes clear that the will of the Scots is to have another referendum?
How many countries are supposedly in a voluntary union they have no power to withdraw from?
So much has changed since 2014, when many people voted to remain in the Union in order to remain in the EU, that there will likely be a different result next time around. If not, then I think that would be a definitive end to the question anyway.
Ahh yes bloody Corbyn back in 2007 and 2011 as Labour leader gifting Scotland to the SNP.
It's obvious to anyone who knows Scottish politics the Blair years ruined Scotland for Labour.
Pretty much every country? There are almost no countries in the world where provinces or territories in a region have the unilateral right to withdraw from a union without the consent of the central authority. You can't do it in the USA, Canada, Spain, France, Australia, Brazil etc etc.
There's a difference between saying what you'd prefer to happen (I'd probably vote for independence if I was in Scotland, even though I think there would be quite an economic shock) and understanding the legal basis behind the central government ultimately being the authority that actually provides a legal route to an independence referendum.
You think the states of the US and Australia are the same as the nations of the UK? Scotland isn't a state, territory, autonomous community or dependency, it is a country.
Interestingly, I came across the same list just now. It is an incredibly poor one.
For starters, the UK is on the list, which was kind of my point. By even allowing the referendum in 2016 (and making its commitments to NI), it already goes quite a way beyond what many other countries are willing to do.
The Canadian supreme court ruled that Quebec could not unilaterally secede (ie run an independence referendum without the consent of the Central government) ie, similar to the ruling today. Whatever Ethiopia's constitution says, the central government's response to what admittedly seem like ill-thought out regional elections in defiance of the central government has been.....years of wars and war crimes. The Moldovan example is particularly specific to two regions and Moldova has gone to war to try to integrate the territory back into its territory. It still does not recognise any attempt to secede.
The PNG example is of the central government signing an agreement with a minority region to hold a referendum at a specified date, just as the UK government gave to the Scottish one.
The French example is again, a very specific example of the central authority allowing a specific territory (New Caledonia) to have referenda at a specified date, not to unilaterally call referenda whenever it chooses. And it came after a period of violence.
Even this shoddily put together list provides almost no examples of countries where someone other than the central authority provides the legal basis for an independence referendum.
I mean, putting history aside, essentially yes?
What marks Scotland out compared to Florida for example? Does it have its own currency? Its own head of state? Its own constitution? Its own military? Does it sit at the UN?
What kinds of things can Sturgeon or the Scottish Parliament do that, for instance, De Sanctis and the Florida legislature can't do?
Well one is a country and the other isn't. Don't remember Florida playing at the World Cup, for example.
Can you (or anybody) define what a country actually is? Was South Sudan a country before it became one a decade ago?
Scotland play in the world cup because of a historical quirk of where football started out as a sport. I'm not sure that having a national football team (but not a national Olympics team for instance) is really the defining characteristic of what makes a country.
I'll ask again, what kinds of things can Sturgeon or the Scottish Parliament do that, for instance, De Sanctis and the Florida legislature can't do?
You can split hairs. I can too. You ask to do a referendum, not to seveed. Canada would enter there then
Etiopia has is, denmark has it, netherland has it and that seatch took me littery 5 seconds. Who knows digging around
And scotland has the permison to hold referendums unilatery? As far as i know it needs permission from london rule of law
Comparing Scotland to Florida ffs 
Essentially they are all bits of land, with borders and varying degree of autonomy, but some places have literally hundreds of years of history of being independent nations, then another few hundreds of being countries that are part of a voluntary union and other places do not.
Florida is a lot more self-governing than Scotland, that's for sure.
Its not even slightly splitting hairs, its the very point of the discussion.
People are upset that the UK Supreme court has ruled that Scotland does not have the legal right to unilaterally hold independence referenda without the consent of the central authority.
I am saying that this is not somehow some Westminster exception, this is the legal standard across the overwhelming majority of countries across the world. Whether you want to call their components countries, provinces, boroughs, dependencies, colonies, municipalities, states, governates, the principle is the same.
Denmark has it, the Netherlands has it. The UK does not have it. Ethiopia does not have it. What the constitution says and the (very violent) reality are two very different things.
Scotland does not have that permission, I have been saying the exact opposite.
You act like the SNP are a single issue party. Their other policies fill a centrist void that has been missing since New Labour.
And anyway. Most in the country have moved away from the idea that you should be able to make huge constitutional changes with a simple majority, given increase knowledge of outside influence and variability around turnout.
If there is a consistent and significant majority (say >60% for 10 years) for independence, another referendum will happen.
Legality aside, do you think they should be allowed to hold the referendum?
Comparing Scotland to Florida ffs
You're right, it is ridiculous. Florida has a governor that actually has real power, with oversight of 2 Government chambers and the ability to enact laws that are grossly different to other parts of the unified country they are part of in pretty much every aspect of life. He is also commander in chief of the state's national guard and oversees a territory with a constitution which is distinct from both the national one and other states.
Importantly, neither of the two have their own currency, head of state, seat at the UN or regular representation at other countries.
I’d be far more troubled if there was a law allowing parts of the country to hold once in a generation referenda whenever they like, and repeat until they get the result they desire.
You’d probably have one a week in Cornwall.
Why? Provided the electoral system was vaguely proportional it would be the desire of the population. That's the whole point of democracy.
Yes.
I would also probably vote to leave the UK if I were Scottish and, as much as I love London, would genuinely consider moving to Scotland in the future if they did leave and rejoin the EU.
I'd also want to feck off the Tories in general and actually rule in a much fairer, equitable way aross the country but that's a separate argument.
Though my return question would then be, what regularity of referenda is reasonable? Is it every year? Every 5? Every 10? 20? Each time a drastic event happens? Each time the SNP feels like it?
Regardless, that isn't really the point I'm trying to make though. I'm responding to the shocked faces and concerned posts about what this really means. As if a central authority providing the legal basis for an independence referendum isn't the complete norm across the world.
As always, an interesting and insightful response. Cheers
Based on what though? Where does this definitition come from?
This actually led me to think a bit more about what a country actually is and I realised that I couldn't actually define something I thought would be as easy to define as a pot or a bed. As it turns out, after a bit of googling, I found out that its actually not really defined at all, though people have tried to do so. In addition, whats the difference between a country, a nation and a state?
Seems its not so easy.
Regardless, my point is not to disparage Scotland or the Scots. There is of course a fierce sense of national pride up there. But I'm not really sure that being a country 300 years ago (of course lots of territories have been countries or states in the past and are no longer so and have no realistic prospects of being so) and having a football team is really enough to mark Scotland out as a unique situation.
As I said, it Scotland were to vote for independence, I'd be fully supportive of the Scots' right to do so and would wish them luck, as well as their efforts to rejoin the EU. I imagine the reality though is that any upcoming referendum will be incredibly divisive and an actual divorce from the UK, especially one with a margin as thin as Brexit was, would make Brexit look like an amicable divorce.
Regardless of whether Scotland is a country in the traditional sense or not, the Westminster Government represent the Scots in International settings and, in that context, its very rare to have parts of the overall country have the ability to unilaterally call independence referenda whenever they please.
It's interesting now you brought it up. Similarly, what can Scotland do on its own that Canadian provinces can't?
As for country/nation/state, of course that's all got a very messy history, at least in Europe. I'm not surprised there aren't consensus definitions. In the end, though, which these kinds of discussions, that sort of terminology or the long-term historical perspective is not very helpful. Like, does Scotland have more rights to independence than Quebec, just because its history as a unified region goes back further? It's better to see this in terms of jurisdictions and the hierarchy and powers that come with it - which is where the comparison of Scotland with US states and Canadian provinces comes in.
Fecks sake, another two years of the venomous reptile whinging about independence.
Yeah, the things that define what makes a country/nation/state/province vary from place to place. We've established that. I think Scotland can define itself as a nation in its own right by pointing to its history while the likes of Florida cannot. Seeking a referendum is in part to legitimise that sentiment. I'm in agreement with you on the rest.
Eh? Do you mean Sturgeon?
Scotland is not a state or a province but a country. It is in a Union, supposedly voluntarily. These points are extremely valid for what I assume are extremely obvious reasons.
You do understand that every nation has its own set of laws? Basing your interpretation of a "country" on a comparison with how federal states are granted autonomy of de facto centralised powers is irrelevant. Historically England and Scotland have been separate nations. I'll use that word again; nations.
The Union was signed in 1707, for the preceding thousand years the countries were separate or in a state of flux. Hell, the Union only happened because Scotland bankrupted itself building a railway in Panama. The fact that we're also a tiny island further supports the argument that this isn't as simple as comparing it to a state based nation.
Our language, currency and social ideals are borne out of centuries of conquest, from the French to the Romans, Scandanavians, etc. You name it, we've been taken over by them. There is no truly "British" identity because we're all just mongrels at the end of the day. Pictish, Celts, even Cornish societies were assimilated by, what were at the time, foreign influences that ultimately became what we know today as "British." Just a bunch of mad bastards that somehow didn't wipe out one another. But were it not for our entirely different heritages we managed to maintain our own national identities. The Holy Roman Empire consisted of multiple European nations that, under one rule, still maintained national powers and kingdoms. If you want to compare Britain with anything then that's what you should be looking at.
My identity is British. If it weren't for my English relatives it would probably be purely Scottish. That's how strong the bonds are to our respective nations. It can't be quantified by comparisons to nations that were formed after our own was; with the benefit of post-Feudal politics and standards.
Last edited:
This is the hypocrisy that I have said in many other situations. The Kosovo is allowed to be independent. Scotland is not. If the majority of the Scots vote for independence in the next election then it's going to be an occupation by the English. Then it's going to get very interesting.
Regardless of the fact that none of us can seemingly identify what a country actually is, as @Cheimoon said, even if it were the case, what does that actually matter viz a viz the legality or right to unilaterally declare an independence referendum? So Scotland is exceptional because it was a country 300 years ago and can do things that Quebec or Florida cannot?
I see a of lot of huffing and puffing and repeating that Scotland is a country without much actual information about what that means in practice, what Scotland can do that States or provinces cannot and why that is actually particularly relevant to this debate.
Again, I ask, so Scotland was (is) a country. What does that mean in practice? Do they have their own currency, head of state, constitution, army, seat at the UN? Does Sturgeon have the ability to decide on significantly different policy compared to the rest of the UK? Could she decide tomorrow to ban abortion for instance?
If people are that upset about Florida, they can consider Texas or Hawaii instead, both of which have been independent Countries/nations in the past.
Did you actually read the article? Several of the countries in the supposed 10 had their claims for independence rejected and most of them can't actually just claim independence (without something major happening, eg Ethiopia stopping being a near one-party state or Romania annexing Moldova etc...).
EDIT: I missed this page of the debate and seen this article has already been challenged.
Yes of course every nation has its own set of laws, my point was that people reacting to this ruling as if it were a massive shock are rather missing the point about how rare the opposite ruling would have been in International politics. There are millions of different weird international situations with regards to borders, shared histories etc and vary rarely does it lead to that ruling.
Pretty much every single country is a mongrel country. Europe has spent the last millennium constantly invading itself, displacing peoples, repopulating etc etc. The Normans were originally Viking. The Rus peoples too. In the Modern day, Normandy is not like Corsica nor Cote-D'Azur. Sicily is not like Florence which is not like Trentino Aldo-Edige. Andalucia is not like the Basque country which is not like Catalonia. Bavaria is not like West-Rhine Westphalia or lower Saxony. Etc etc etc.
I think I and a lot of you guys are essentially talking at cross purposes here. A lot of you are using the historical and emotional arguments. We were a country (300 years ago), we are a nation, we have a set culture. None of that I deny or am trying to belittle, which is what some seem to think.
I'm trying to speak of the legal element, whilst providing examples of the closest thing I can think of (and people can disregard if a comparison to a state upsets them so much) as well as the actual practicalities of what it means to be a 'country' (which as we've found out, is seemingly not that easy to define) or a 'nation' and why that actually matters that much when we're talking about the practicalities of seceding? I am trying to say is that it is almost unprecedented for a central authority to cede the ability to declare referenda, particularly with regards to independence, to a portion of that central authority. Whether that other authority is a state, territory, country etc. The moral argument as to whether this should be the case or not is a separate matter and not one which I am pushing.
Which then also brought up what a country even apparently has the right to do vs a state in the USA or the premier of Quebec for instance. I don't know much about Canadian politics (perhaps @Cheimoon can add more here) but it turns out that Sturgeon seemingly has quite a bit less power than De Santis or Abbot.