Scotland seceding?

ferrelhadley

Because we do not live on land expropriated only a couple of hundred years ago....

Ken Natton

....

MarcoD

Of course history is taught, but from my perspective, the world is made out of individuals and most believes they hold are, when thinking about it, utterly absurd. A nation is a social construct, so it has some pragmatic value, but most ideas associated with it seem to fall in the 'romantic hogwash' category.

To put it to an extreme: ponder on those individuals from the Roman era. They were about half your size, had bad teeth, a foul breath, were disease ridden, almost completely illiterate, full of bigot ideas, and most of them were barely surviving. If people like that would move next to your house, you would be tempted to move out. I am clueless why I would relate to them?

ThomasT

I don't have any opinion on whether or not it's a good or bad thing for Scotland to become independent of the UK, or whether the the breakup of the UK is a good or bad thing. Only that it seems to me that contiguous political entities would seem to maximize their stability via common goals, and being, in some important senses, united. I think I can understand, given historical ethnic imperatives, why Scotland, Wales, Alabama, or any particular geographically circumscribed population, might desire a particular independence.

Thanks to Ken Natton for some interesting historical stuff that we aren't exposed to in American schools.

ThomasT

I'm not sure I understand your point, but I definitely agree with your statement.

Ken Natton

As best I can understand it Thomas, his point appears to be that because our ancestors did not enjoy the same convenience of available health care as we do, we should despise them.

Whatever, I know I started it, but this defence of the value of history is now too far from the subject of this thread. So let me try to drag it back.

Believe me, I claim no particular insight into the thinking of those who advocate Scottish or Welsh independence, but one obvious difference between England on the one hand and Scotland and Wales on the other is the balance of political opinion. We had eighteen years of Conservative government from 1979 to 1997 and there can be no doubt that independent Scotland and Wales would have had governance much further to the left. It has not always been the case, but there are currently no Conservative MPs in either Scotland or Wales. That does not mean that there are no Conservative supporters in those two countries, but they are very much in the minority. So much in the minority that it would seem that neither Scotland or Wales would ever have an essentially right-wing government. A government of England alone would probably still fluctuate between right and left. You have to understand the large imbalance of population between the constituent countries of the UK to see why this would be the case.

And on the matter of independent Scotland’s and independent Wales’s position in the wider world, there is the whole business of membership of the European Union. Despite the obvious contradiction with the fundamental notion of nationalism, the way that both The Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru deal with the argument that countries with such a small population would suffer significant disadvantage on the world stage, is to advocate membership of the European Union, independent of the UK. As a notion, it might well have some merit. But if the populations of Wales and Scotland feel themselves marginalised within the UK, there has to be some question marks over their likely contentedness with governance from Brussels.

ThomasT

Thanks Ken, I'm going to study and think about your statements. At this time I can't pretend to understand the politics of the UK. I don't really understand the politics of the US and I've lived here for over 60 years.

MarcoD

To Thomas and Ken. No I agitate against some 'romantic' historical perspectives of Nationalists. Like 'We the X fought off them Y for centuries.' Those romantic perspectives are often popularized in movies.

But if you look at the facts, it is chance you're part of a certain population, a nation is a social construct, it is highly debatable what kind of relation people have -or should have- with something as abstract as a nation, your genes probably have been that much diluted that it makes no sense to really 'establish' a relation with historical figures or individuals, you have little responsibility wrt to the accounts of other individuals, and if you would look at those particular historical individuals, you probably wouldn't particularly like them.

Most of the feeling or rhetoric is hogwash. It just appeals to people who like to play 'megalomaniac' games on world maps.

SW VandeCarr

Instead of governance from Brussels, there is more and more talk of de facto governance from Berlin. Germany is really driving the issue as the country with the deepest pockets and a public which is increasingly unwilling to lend money to troubled economies. As such, Germany, acting thorough the EU, is in a position to influence the European Central Bank (ECB) and IMF to impose unpopular, but probably necessary fiscal measures. Germany is pushing for more centralization of powers in the EU.

It's not clear that Scotland and particularly Wales would be immediately admitted to the EU. Why should they be? How would their credit be evaluated? There are still countries like Turkey which have long been waiting to join and whose economic record in recent years has been fairly good; certainly better than Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Turkey's interest in EU membership has correspondingly declined. That doesn't mean that the EU would be ready to welcome Scotland and Wales as members, especially if, like the Cameron government, they're not very willing to help the PIIGS.

Ken Natton

Hmmm. It’s a very telling point, SW VandeCarr, and one that, I confess, I hadn’t considered. Perhaps the nationalist parties are also guilty of assuming that, as former members of the UK, they would be shoe-ins for independent membership of the EU. Even if membership was, eventually, granted to them, the length of time it would take to get to that point might present genuine difficulties for them as independent nations. Exactly what their trading position would be in the interim, I really don’t know. I can see this being a strong line of argument for those campaigning for a ‘No’ vote in referenda on independence. My, I confess slightly cynical feeling has always been that the whole line of argument by the nationalists of independent membership of the European Union has been a matter of political convenience, rather than genuine conviction. As I previously suggested, the whole idea is entirely contrary to nationalist principles. It would be up to those campaigning for the no vote to expose that particular hypocrisy.

Vagn

There's also, on this issue, the fact that other major EU countries have their own independence movements, Spain in particular has threatened to veto any bid for an independent Scotland being admitted into the EU, as it fears that it would strengthen the Catalonian and Basque nationalist movements. France could also be affected as they have their own Basque and Corsican movements.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...p-6292846.html

ThomasT

I agree with the essence of your points, which I take to be the view that unmitigated nationalism, and the appeal to historical conflicts and separations, only perpetuates divisiveness to no good purpose. On the other hand, if the creation of an independent political entitiy would benefit the lot of the common people involved, then it would seem to be a good thing to pursue.

Wrt the big picture, mankind is divided enough, too much, imho. Eg., it really annoys me that commentators on, say, Olympic events, tennis tournaments, etc., are constantly pointing out a competitor's home country. Who cares? These competitions shouldn't, imho, be translated into national competitions. We are, all of us, citizens of the world, and it would be truly wonderful if we developed and embraced some common goals for the good of humanity ... not just the interests of one nation or another.