How many people who are NOT citizens of the UK, think Scotland should be independent

...continued ...

Are you getting the idea? We know about military forces. If you are ever in Edinburgh, try to visit Saint Giles cathedral. It's on the Royal Mile, which leads up to Edinburgh Castle. It has memorials to Scottish campaigns all over the world and they have served in some very, very unexpected locations for centuries.

Now all of that apart...do you know who set up the US Navy?

US Navy
Founded by John Paul Jones, a Scotsman. Read about his exploits in any US history book.

Sigh...

We will probably come up with something new, just for the hell of it and for the rest of you to follow and live by, as a terrible hash is being made of that last system we gave to you on a plate.

To be continued again (and may you learn the error of your ways in rattling the cage of a wee Scottish wummin)

 

Cherry-picking much? Now who's playing semantics?

I take it you believe you are the one who determines whether people are being oppressed? If you think a Scot and an Englishman have equal representation in parliament you're batty. If you don't have equal representation you are being oppressed.

 

The definitions of common usage are fairly interchangeable, but this is a good explanation of the more specific way they would be used by, for example, historians:

'Country' is a more vague and therefore problematic term (which is why historians often avoid using it!). The common understanding is often that it is similar to 'state', but that isn't always the case, and isn't the case in the UK. It is a very unusual situation (to do with the unusual history of a 'union of crowns'), so it's not surprising that confusion abounds about it!

The Scots are a nation, living in a defined geographical area. That area used to be a 'state', but then formed a union with another 'state' to make the UK. It has still retained its its officially recognised status as a 'country' within the UK - this is the unusual bit. When Germany and Italy, for example, formed as 'nation states' they were unifications of previous smaller states that existed within one 'nation' of people, and the previous 'states' ceased to be referred to as separate 'countries' at all - the term had no relevance, because they people were already part of the same 'nation' (although they had previously been in separate 'states'). The 'union' forming the UK was different, though, because the people of Scotland and England were not of the same 'nation' - they officially retained the titles of 'countries within the union', as opposed to simply being just 'regions within one state'. In that sense, the UK is very much like the EU.

Yes, to an extent it is semantics, but the understanding of those semantics is vital to the understanding of the situation that exists.

Now it is reasonable to suggest that Scotland would be better off within the UK in financial terms, or should remain part of the union because it is not being oppressed. The 'oppression' is subjective and open to debate, with those in favour of independence arguing that that the denial of the right of Scotland to self-government is in itself a form of 'oppression', while the unions arguing it isn't. That's all fair enough, and a matter for the people of Scotland to decide.

The important thing to understand, though, is the importance of the terms and semantics as applied to the UK compared with most other places. It's well understood within the UK, even though UK people will debate the relative importance of it between themselves, and the wisdom of the various possible scenarios for the future. Nobody in England would deny the existence of Scotland as a 'country' in its own right (as well as a 'nation'), even though it isn't currently independent (and the same is true of Wales, which has currently less autonomy than Scotland), but it's easy to understand why this seems a little odd or confusing to people from elsewhere who aren't familiar with the concept. As previously mentioned, when it comes to something like international sport, the 'countries' that compete would often be Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, rather than the UK, because those are the 'national' teams of the individual 'countries' within the 'state' that is the UK.

Being a 'state' comprised of actually recognised different 'countries' and 'nations' is very, very unusual in the world (possibly even unique). I know of no other place where there has been an argument like this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/4401630/Gordon-Browns-British-Olympic-football-team-dream-is-killed-off.html
There are those who want to erode the separate status of countries within the union in order to 'strengthen' the union, and there are those (often in the smaller countries, although opinions there can vary a great deal) who will always oppose that fiercely.

To give another example, when the USA plays someone at rugby or soccer (although many in the USA probably won't notice that it's happening!), the USA will be playing either Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland (although in rugby NI don't have a team):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/5392736.stm

It won't be USA v UK, and 'England' (which some might assume to be the UK, I guess) will only include the English players, not the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish. Before such an international game, you will here the national anthems of those countries played, but only for England will it be 'God Save the Queen' - for Wales it would be 'Hen wlad fy nhadau', which is our national anthem. You won't see the union rag waved much at our games either, you will see Wales's own national flag.

Understanding this peculiar and highly unusual situation is vital to understanding the issue of Scotland's (potential) independence. Scotland isn't a 'region' or 'nation' within a single 'country', but a 'country' and 'nation' within a single 'state'.

 

For feck sake, do you know who invented "currency"?

You don't know who Law is? (surprise):

A Scot. Yes, a Scot created this whole currency nonsense. We have been playing with money forever. So again, we'll manage regarding currency

Btw, we have always retained our own physical currency separate from England's, did you know if you try to use Scottish money in England many shops refuse to accept it?

That is just the business of Government to negotiate an exit. It would not happen overnight. However, as the devolved Scottish Parliament clearly demonstrates, it is very straightforward to separate.

If there is no UK Government, why would we have them?

Don't even start me about border control as there is none. That is why this country is heaving with drugs, prevention is abysmal. No, there is already almost free travel between Eurocountries, why would that be an issue?

And you are completely ignorant of history, as the copious information above evidences.

Have you heard of this man at all?

Any idea what he did? Hint...father of capitalism?

Or was the father of capitalism Andrew Carnegie...or maybe it's Donald Trump, whose mother was Scottish.

Don't worry about us when it comes to finance. At the moment, we're playing at it. Plenty of Scots abhor being governed from Westminster. Plenty deliberately evade tax and claim benefit while earning because the mindset is to ostruct the UK union and live outside it. When that changes, this country will change.

Scots have been in control of UK Government for the past 10 years. Both Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are Scottish and anyone who is politically aware in the UK, is aware of what has been termed the Scottish stranglehold on the Labour leadership for many years now. Government is not a new concept to Scotland. If you know anything about the history and values of the US, you will know it derives a great deal from Scottish connections. Do you know the origins of the word redneck? Have a google about...

Scotland joined the UK for various reasons, one to buy time and gain respite from the monster below. Things have changed. England is not a military threat. Economically, Scotland has astute people and freedom for them to conduct business here can only boost the economy. Ireland's economy has crashed, but there are other small nations who do very well. The Swiss model is one to consider as was Ireland before the crash. Scotland need not join the EU, to engage in free trade with other countries. There is North Sea oil, but there are other productive sectors which are not so prominent. Dolly the sheep is a populist example of the work which goes on here. The computer game industry (think Grand Theft Auto). Royal Bank of Scotland behaved disastrously but is pulling it back, based on last week's figures and that is a substantial power...quote from RBS "We have over 40 million customers all over the world who use our banking services through over 30 leading global brands."... they have locations in the US. Rhode Island CFG, Citizens Bank, Charter One, corporate banking, US credit, foreign exchange and derivatives market. They provide US treasury, agency and asset-backed securities and through Global Transaction Services provide cash management and trade services to the commercial market....Personal Banking, Business & Commercial, Corporate and Institutional... RBS contributed and will contribute again a huge amount to the UK public fund.

Or could to the Scottish public fund

Scotland was one of the industrial powerhouses of Europe from the time of the Industrial Revolution and has diversity of goods and services, it produces textiles, whisky, shortbread (don't knock it, everyone buys it) to aero engines, buses, computer software, ships, avionics and microelectronics to banking, insurance, fund management and other related financial services...We lost much of the manufacturing industries and primary-based extractive industries but that combined with a rise in the service sector of the economy which is now the largest sector in Scotland, with significant rates of growth over the last decade.

Support the push for independence. We will remember and invite you to the Independence celebration. In fact, you can all stay at my house.

 

Scotland is better represented in some ways than England, because of the devolved Parliament. That is why support for dissolution of the Union is increasing in England.

It was fine for Scotland/Wales/Ireland to be under represented for centuries, but turn the tables for 10 years and England want out.

 

Heh



What you said was factually incorrect, so I corrected you and provided sources.

Thats what "subjective" means.

If you are asking my opinion on whether or not a given group should be able to secede, which is what the OP was doing, then yeah I would be determining if they are oppressed.

In what way are they not equal?

 

Because there are 10 times as many English as there are Scots. Simple as that. The UK parliament is in control of the UK, including Scotland, and the UK parliament is controlled overwhelming by the will of the people of England. Therefore Scotland is controlled by the will of the people of England. 'We, the people' does not apply in Scotland - it is 'Them, the people from the country next door'!

 

Colorado has a population of around 5 million. New York has a population of around 19 or 20 million.

Does that mean that I am not equal to someone from new York?

 

The difference is that the people of Colorado and New York can group together with others to defeat each other democratically. No such option exists for Scotland, because England can outvote the rest of the UK many times over.

It doesn't matter is 100% of the people of Scotland (together with Wales and Northern Ireland) and their elected representatives vote against a war, for example, it only takes just over half of England to vote for it to defeat them. Not only would the war then happen, but Scottish, Welsh and NI soldiers would be sent out to fight and die 'for their country', and even though 100% of their country would have opposed the war.

 

So the solution would seem to be the creation of something analogous to the Senate in the US. IMO, creating a separate nation is overkill.

Colorado cant hope to match the influence of New York when it comes to things like Presidential elections. But I dont think that makes me unequal to someone living in New York.

 

Proper federalism is another option to improve the situation, yes. The fate of Scotland should be for the people of Scotland to decide, though - if they want to go the way of independance, good luck to them.

 

Yeah right, C:

I oppose proportional representation because it might worsen our situation, but people are not oppressed. They just don't like being part of the UK. And the current situation is just silly, the Labour Party is out now but no one in the country voted Tory and they're in power. The system is not responding to what Scottish people want.

 

If you were creating a separate nation. You would not be. The country predates the union. The union is temporary. Couple of hundred years in 2000 is nothing.

 

You could use the same argument for Texas or Hawaii. BFD. I dont think Texas or Hawaii should secede either. And for the same reasons.

 

Not really. Scotland is a country. It shares the international part of its government, by choice, with 3 other countries. If you look at the EU, there you see many countries sharing many parts of government with many other countries. They are still countries.

How the US administers is irrelevant.

And neither is England. Is it a nation in your small US world?

Ask the OP poster.

It really isn't and that attitude causes many problems for the US internationally as the unfortunate 9/11 incident highlighted.

It matters as much to me, as my categorising the US from a basis of ignorance would matter to you. Not at all.

 

If the majority of their inhabitants support that, who are you to obstruct their choice? You're nobody. It's their right. Unless you don't believe in freedom.

 

Using that logic, I should be able to just carve off a few miles of land and declare myself my own Republic. Gimme a break.

They have representation. They are not being oppressed.

 

Then its not a real country IMO.

Not in this context, since I was using it as an example.

No. We deal with the UK, not England.

Envy and jealousy are ugly things.

Well, the thread isnt about you. Sorry. If you want to exclude American opinions, start another thread.

 

Sure. So now what the majority of US citizens want is irrelevant. You're part of the UN and the UN dictates what you do. Or the G8. Or NATO. Or whichever international organisation you want to mention.

You don't like that? You are still a country? No, I'm sorry, but you are part of the EU now.



The people who live in an area are the only people to decide what is done with it and how can anyone claim to support freedom and say otherwise? It's ridiculous and just another example of US saying one thing and doing another.

 

So what? US is not a country, it's just a big bag of different states. How is that a country? It's not. It's a mess.

Whatever that means (the answer is nothing)

So 4 countries cease to exist.

You're embarrassing yourself.

I wouldn't know. Life is too short for such things. But who knows what motivated 9/11 and it's nothing to make light of. Better to learn from mistakes, not repeat them. People are generally not envious of the US, they seem more to be angry with it.

What kind of a comment is that...

 

No.

What fun would that be?

 

That may be your opinion, but unfortunately Scotland doesn't agree with you, and neither do your own USA sporting organisations, or those of any other country in the world that plays international sport. Scotland is recognised a country, with its own separate national team that plays internationals against other countries' national teams (including the USA).

Scotland is not an independent state (although it used to be). It is not an independent country. It is still a country, though - a country currently governed within a political/administrative union with another country. Its people never in any way voted in favour of that union - that decision was one made through a union of the crowns of two separate and independent countries, after an unmarried Queen of England died leaving no heirs apart from the person who happened at the time to already be King of Scotland (in the days when Kings and Queens still had actual power over their people to a large extent!). Despite that political union of crowns and states, Scotland still maintains its status as a country within a political union, and still operates as a country in its own right in other aspects of life (including most international sport).

If the people of the country of Scotland decide to dissolve an artificial political union between Scotland and its neighbor that they never decided to have in the first place, that should be a matter for them. In these days of democratic freedom from the political control of autocrats and royals with real political power, the fate of Scotland should be a matter for the people of Scotland. If they decide to undo the ties that were forced on their country by a monarch seeking to enlarge his own little island Empire, that's up to them. That's how freedom and democracy should work, and free people with democratic rights should have the power to overturn the decisions made by former undemocratic leaders if that is what they decide.

Perhaps some people in the US don't support the ideals of freedom and democracy in the same way, though.

 

In presidential elections the opposite is true. The fewer people a state has the more representation they receive per person in the election because each state gets a 2 electorate "bonus" from the senators. The founders solved the equality issue by creating a bicameral congress where the states receive 2 senate members regardless of population and house representation based upon population. This means low population states are over-represented in the senate and under-represented in the house. This isn't a perfect system, but certainly protects low-population states more than what is seen in the UK.

 

Well, the OP isnt asking Scotland.

Dont ask the question if you dont want to hear the answer.

The Constitution is what makes it a Country. The states are not politically separate.

They did not exist to begin with. They are parts of the same country in this context.

 

I opened this topic because I thought more people were aware of Scotland and its politics as a country, and not just part of the UK, and I thought that more people outwith the UK would have known that.
Even with excellent replies from Viv and Cennyd however, it seems many folks abroad still regard this land of ours as only a small part of the UK and even of England which I find a bit disapppointing.
It was interesting to note however, that when Al Megraghi was released the US government knew the difference between the UK government at Westminster and the Scottish government at Holyrood. They knew where to direct their complaints then.