What makes Scotland so distinct from other regions of the UK that it reserves the right to unilaterally hold independence referendums whenever it pleases? I don't just mean compared to NI and Wales, I mean compared to regions like Cornwall, Yorkshire, or even regions of Scotland like the Hebrides. The United Kingdom is not a federation, it is one country. Does Catalonia (as the richest Spanish region) have a right to unilaterally secede from Spain because doing so would be good for wallets of the people of Catalonia despite the impact this would have on the rest of Spain? Or what about the northern regions of Italy wanting to break free of those corrupt gangsters in the South? What about the New England region of the United States, can it break away from the US so that it do away with all those Trump supporting rednecks holding it back politically?
Scottish Politics
- Thread starter Cheesy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
What makes Scotland so distinct from other regions of the UK that it reserves the right to unilaterally hold independence referendums whenever it pleases? I don't just mean compared to NI and Wales, I mean compared to regions like Cornwall, Yorkshire, or even regions of Scotland like the Hebrides. The United Kingdom is not a federation, it is one country. Does Catalonia (as the richest Spanish region) have a right to unilaterally secede from Spain because doing so would be good for wallets of the people of Catalonia despite the impact this would have on the rest of Spain? Or what about the northern regions of Italy wanting to break free of those corrupt gangsters in the South? What about the New England region of the United States, can it break away from the US so that it do away with all those Trump supporting rednecks holding it back politically?
Scotland doesn't have the right to hold a referendum when it pleases. It has elected a pro-independence supporting party to a devolved parliament, who have submitted a request to Westminster to hold a referendum. That's massively different from just declaring independence.
If Cornwall, or the Hebrides, or any other region of the UK wish to become independent, they're perfectly welcome to campaign for a devolved parliament, and if they obtain one are perfectly entitled to elect a party who declares their intention to hold a referendum on independence. As it stands they haven't done so, unlike Scotland.
There's a lot of 'what about' there.
I don't know if it has escaped you, but the days of democratic countries going to war with each other for land is long gone. Yes it is true that the modern democratic nation states of the world grew by violent and undemocratic conquest, but the point is that that chapter has been assigned to history. Since democracy has pretty much established peace among the democracies of the world, democratic nation states have remained remarkably in tact as far as their borders are concerned. Secession should be reserved for cases of war, mass oppression and genocide....not for idealistic political movements within peaceful and prosperous countries because some people object to legitimate internal democratic politics.
Why?
Scotland isn't a region, it's a country that united with England by mutual treaty.
Why should this be the case? What's wrong with a peaceful pursuit of independence?
Indeed. Scottish independence needs to be put into the context of wider world politics, which is why I support the firmness of countries like Spain on opposing the SNP fantasy. Scotland isn't Kosovo declaring its independence from Serbia....it's a region of a democratic and peaceful country just like any other. Make a case for Scotland's right to secede, and surely you have to defend the right of practically any culturally distinct region of any other country to declare independence.
Which is bad?
It isn't a country in any meaningful sense of the word.
It undermines global peace and stability, which relies on the sovereign nation state as its base unit.
It does not.
What are the meaningful senses of the word then?
This is exactly what the SNP want to hear, you could be a recruiting sargeant.
This is just conjecture: if it's done peacefully and without trouble then it's perfectly fine. Any attempts at violent action would be curtailed and halted by the greater state in question.
You're acting as if any region/area forming their own independence movement and actually gaining traction is particularly easy and likely to happen, too. It's not. It's taken the SNP close to a century to build themselves into a credible political movement with actual power and wide support. Again, any other region or area is welcome to try and do this in a peaceful manner; most struggle because it's generally not a popular thing to do.
The status of the individual countries within the UK is quite complicated but the union was formed on the basis of individual states joining together, and to this day those states continue to retain certain levels of autonomy, whether politically or culturally, that often isn't the case in other countries.
By most people's understanding, a country is a sovereign nation state - it has its own sovereign government, its own sovereign parliament and its own international borders...Scotland has none of these. A country has its own military, its own financial system (usually), its own embassies or consulates, its own system of taxation and it is recognised internationally. Scotland meets none of this criteria. It, along with the other so-called countries of the United Kingdom are nothing more than glorified regions.
There is no precedent to refer to for a region of a sovereign, peaceful democratic country declaring independence. None. It has never happened before. Once it happens, it will trigger a new age of international politics where the sovereign nation state is no longer a stable unit on which international law can be based.
Why is this a bad thing?
Because the current system works. It created the Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and an unthinkable era of peace between the democracies of the world. Tp use a practical example, how does a treaty work if the signatories are being broken up into ever smaller units that might each have differing views on the subject matter?
Believe the term is whubbery.
@rednev mate have you not seen Braveheart ?
You could argue that's more a reflection of how unusual the UK is than whether or not each of the so called countries are actually countries?
Normandy strikes oil...'feck it, lets become independent. Why should the rest of the country get rich off of OUR oil'.
Brittany has a cultural awakening - 'feck this, our Celtic heritage is not represented in French politics...referendum anyone?'
Marseilles becomes a majority Muslim city....'feck it, let's declare a caliphate. We are in the majority in this city, it is our democratic right!'
All valid cases for independence from France, if you are to be consistent with the Scottish case.
Brittany has a cultural awakening - 'feck this, our Celtic heritage is not represented in French politics...referendum anyone?'
Marseilles becomes a majority Muslim city....'feck it, let's declare a caliphate. We are in the majority in this city, it is our democratic right!'
All valid cases for independence from France, if you are to be consistent with the Scottish case.
If each of those regions were to democratically elect a pro-independence party to a devolved parliament, with a commitment to independence within their manifesto that is then approved by the centralised parliament of the nation as a whole...with the party wishing to pursue independence respecting human rights conventions etc, then yeah...fair play to a country who pursues independence.
Your 'caliphate' arguments falls apart, for example, because declaring one would likely impede upon freedom of speech and human rights (obviously). Similarly, with the first one, if Normandy struck oil then it'd be within the right of the French government to either say no to any request for independence, or demand a share of the oil if they do go independent. Of course, both regions would have to have substantial support for it first...and as of now they don't.
Well if you're going to reduce this to being absolutely absurd then what claim does England have to be independent from France seeing as it was conquered by one of the King of France's vassals and why should Ireland be independent?
What claim did Canada, the US, or Australia have to independence either (or are they countries, because technically the Queen is still the head of state of both Canada and Australia so maybe they're glorified regions too)?
It's futile boiling it down to an abstract. Clearly, both the Scots recognise themselves as a culturally diverse and self contained group, and the English (through granting them the initial referendum) do too. As soon as they become independent they meet most of your criteria within days, and the rest within years at that point does it even matter what they were or weren't before?
Imagine if the next Unionist campaign adopts this argument. "Know your place, vassals!"
It is disingenuous to simply ignore that whilst all of the above is true, Scotland has operated it's own legal system, education system and system of local government historically, long before devolution and entered the union as an equal partner and separate nation. This cannot be said of other regions to the same extent and it is a peculiar situation with no real equivalent. To pretend otherwise merely clouds the issue.
He would have been better off stopping the first Brexit referendum. Reap what you sow and all that.
On the subject of Dave
Almost. Almost.
Almost. Almost.
Whilst that is also true, isn't this also limited? The only reason its not for Wales and Ireland is because they got added to the Union through conquest. Should they lose their right to nationhood thanks to (admittedly historic) English aggression? Ireland is a particular cluster feck when you approach it from this angle. I'm not convinced Wales has any particular strong historical claim to being a country though in fairness.
Of course not, I'm not arguing that the Scottish movement has any kind of greater claim than any other...especially in the case of Ireland which is a whole other kettle of colonial fish. I'm merely pointing out that the UK is a complex structure which goes way beyond simple regions as RedNev stated. In Scotland's case, you must consider the history which involves a voluntary union of two nation states when discussing these matters. Yorkshire, for instance, is not really an equivalent.
I thought it went bankrupt funding failed colonies in America and joined the UK to avoid destitution.
That doesn't change the historical situation of union of nation states (never mind the many other reasons) that highlights why Scotland is different from many other regions of the UK, which is the only point I was making.
It did, but it was still voluntary, and isn't a region.
But you said joined as an equal partner which is a little misleading given the circumstances.
In joining a union with a much more populous nation in order to dilute its debts it was never going to carry 50% authority or have a right of veto over decisions, was it?
The point is, of course, that there is a unique nature to Scotland's identity based on lengthy history as a sovereign state until the early 18th Century, which is an important part of the historical context of the current situation. This is not the place to debate history to this depth, but the Darien incident weakening Scotland's resistance to the Union doesn't change the fact that the treaty, that still stands today, was absolutely politically positioned as a unification (and in effect suspension of) both national parliaments as equals. The Darien disaster was also not the only reason the union.
This point isn't terribly relevant however. I am not arguing that Scotland has, should have, or will have 50% authority or veto, but that there both a clear sense of, and historical basis for, a sense of nation.
This is kind of like the religion debate regards whether there is a god or isn't one. I don't really care until you start telling me what to do because of your belief that there is one.
I don't care whether Scotland is or isn't classed as a country, I do care about what that means for the six million people living in Yorkshire a region as opposed to the six million people living in Scotland a country.
If it makes no difference then what is the point of the argument you can call it a planet for all I care.
If it does then tell me exactly the difference in treatment it entitles the Scots to because of it. If it means they have a one decibel louder voice or a one penny better deal then its a region I tell you and we need to burn at the stake anyone who dissents.
Did you know Lancashire used to be part of Yorkshire? I only found that out recently, it was a bit of a shock. Obviously the good folk of the red rose soon figured out they were a cut above the other lot and went their separate, and superior, way. God bless the Queen (Duke of Lancaster).
Ahh, the good ole stable and peaceful days of the post WWII cold war! No civil wars or alike scenarios were happening in Western Europe, Germany was a divided country, Ukraine, the Baltic states and many more were belonging to the Sovjet Union ... Indeed, a fantastically peaceful, stable era. Who cares about the will of people who were under unwanted leader- or dictatorships in this brilliant system ...
Borders have always been and will always be changing. That's the normal course of history. If Scots want to have a second referendum, so be it.
Re Scotland joining the EU Spain's Foreign Minister made a comment yestarday which was directed at both Catalonia and Scotland.
Scotland will cease to be part of the EU after Brexit because it is a component part the the member state, not a member state in its own right - that's for Catalonia.
After independence Scotland would have to join the queue to join the EU ( no mention of a veto ) - that's for Scotland.
Scotland will cease to be part of the EU after Brexit because it is a component part the the member state, not a member state in its own right - that's for Catalonia.
After independence Scotland would have to join the queue to join the EU ( no mention of a veto ) - that's for Scotland.
Last edited:
That's the thing though, the polls show that they don't.