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

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by mairead, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. magnum

    magnum Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Messages:
    5,057
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I remember reading in The Scotsman a couple of years ago that most Scots would rather have devolution than independence. If Scotland was granted independence how would it retain the monarchy, currency, passports and embassy network of the nation state they have left?
     
  2. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article622566.ece

    http://www.newsnetscotland.com/politics/1202-poll-reveals-surge-in-support-for-scottish-independence

    It blows with the wind. The economic crisis affected it and al-Megrahi fiasco affected it, the ineptitude of the Labour leadership affected it...everything affects it. That is the joy of being Scottish. Unpredictability.

    You can't predict that until the vote is counted. Even down to disgusting tactics like those used with the Thatcher era vote, when she moved the goalposts. You can take a poll, but how many people are going to vote in a referendum, how high will the bar be set, will the Government honour the vote...

    These questions are not an issue. They can be worked on over years if necessary and not one of them is an obstacle.

    As far as I heard, they are restructuring the embassy network already, unrelated to this topic. Some mad plan for EU Embassies...

    The SNP has no plan to eject the Royals.

    Currency, it would be a choice based on what is economically advantageous, I expect.

    Passports, I understand Northern Irish people may already have an Irish passport. My passport says European Union across the front and then the blurb about the UK. If the country remains in the EU and it then says European Union and Scotland, so what?
     
  3. Viv

    Viv Banned by Request

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Messages:
    8,174
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The resistance to facts is really astounding.

    It doesn't matter at all to me, but it is strange to see overwhelming facts and evidence from people who live in the 4 countries concerned and who know what the reality is....and still the uninformed resist facts and continue with we don't like that idea so it's not true.:-D

    They can't even be called "uninformed", as they have been informed again and again by different people using different sources. Probably better not to be too specific in describing what that attitude is...
     
  4. ryanm34

    ryanm34 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As EU citizens you are entitled to consular assistance at any embassie for an EU memberstate. How many do you really need?

    Surprising for the country that gave birth to the enlightenment, I would have expected a Republic.

    Dual Monarchy? So still in the UK but with a legislature and government that would be on equal footing with the westminster parliment?

    Might it not be simpler to look for federation? A parliment for each country with each having equal control over their respective country and a federal body for external affairs, defence etc?

    You might end up like Belgium though!:confuse:
     
  5. dixiehunter

    dixiehunter Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,341
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What.?...........Scotland is not Free ?....Do you mean Mel Gibson (WALLACE) died for nothing in that movie BRAVEHEART.
     
  6. whiteguysteve

    whiteguysteve New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope, my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great granpappy killed his dumb skirt-wearin ass good.
     
    magnum and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, this forum is dominated by Americans and most Americans do not consider Scotland a separate country. Even though it is technically a country by some definitions. From an American point of view, Scotland is a part of another country (the UK). I think that is why you are not getting the kinds of responses you might hope for.


    IMO, the reason for that is that you are not really being oppressed, and you do have representation. People in Maine dont complain and threaten secession because Texas has a bigger say in national politics. Ditto with Hawaii.
     
  8. whiteguysteve

    whiteguysteve New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Some active separatist movements in the US:
    • Alaskan Independence Party
    • Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement
    • North Star Republic
    • Republic of Cascadia
    • Republic of Lakotah
    • Republic of Texas
    • Second Republic of Vermont
     
  9. SpankyTheWhale

    SpankyTheWhale New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    Messages:
    22,425
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Those aren't significant. Every idea has a group behind it. It doesn't mean anything about the reality of the situation.
     
  10. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh please. Two people getting together in a basement is not a "separatist movement".

    None of those is a statistically significant portion of the population. Not even remotely.
     
  11. Red

    Red Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,813
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That's perhaps because individual electors in Maine or in Hawaii have a grossly disproportionate say in national politics.

    Ditto with Scotland.
     
  12. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The US is just that, united states, the system is made to work between many different places. The UK is a remnant of the British Empire, which is just a collection of nations that somehow should work to the glory of England. While it's not made to exploit Scotland, it's still not made to take them into account.
     
  13. whiteguysteve

    whiteguysteve New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    source

    source

    18% of the Texas population is not "insignificant".

    The Alaskan Independence Party is the third largest political party in the state, and they don't even include Republicans and Democrats who would also support secession.
     
  14. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are using a DailyKOS poll to prove stuff?


    I disagree. Especially since we have not seen their elected representatives agitating for it.
     
  15. whiteguysteve

    whiteguysteve New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you noticed, Rasmussen was also quoted. And 18% is insignificant? Does that mean African Americans are insignificant too? Can we start ignoring what they want? After all, they're less than 18% of the US population. Or do you change your definitions of what's a significant portion of a population to suit your own purposes?
     
  16. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, I just said it was in post #114.

    When it comes for agitating for secession, yeah. Thats one reason they are called a "minority".

    25% of Americans also think that the government was behind 911. BFD.


    An 18% minority can be ignored on any issue. Regardless of the race/gender/whatever that makes up that 18%.

    Blacks matter because they are not the only ones who favor any single issue. There is no issue with 100% black support or opposition.

    That is why they are not analogous to secessionists. ALL secessionists are in favor of secession. Thats why they are called Secessionists.

    In other words...Its an apples and oranges comparison. You are comparing an ethnic group (which never completely agrees on anything) to people who favor a specific change (and who all agree by definition). They are not analogous.
     
  17. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As I said in one of my earlier message, the term 'country' is often used in a very vague way, so let's steer clear of it and summerise in a different way:

    Scotland is not an independent 'state'. It is a former independent state which formed a union with another, to become a part of the UK.

    The Scots are a 'nation' - they are a people with a distinct national identity and culture, separate from the other peoples and nations within the union.

    That nation occupies a clearly and legally defined geographical area known as Scotland, which is the area of their former, pre-union independent 'state'.

    Whether that area is being referred to as a 'country' specifically isn't really important. Although it is legally recognized and defined as a 'country' even though it isn't a 'state', it doesn't really matter whether that definition is used by others or whether they choose to use 'country' to refer to 'state'. Call it 'the former state of the nation of Scotland', if that term works better for you - that term would be pretty indisputable, I think.

    The difference is that the people of Maine, Hawaii and a number of other states that agree with them can group together and overrule the will of Texas to stop the will of Texas being imposed unilaterally across the entire USA. That's what can't happen in the UK. The other countries (or whatever you choose to call them!) cannot overrule the will of England, and whatever England decides is imposed on them all. In that sense, the people of Scotland don't really have much more representation in practice that did the people of the former colonies now known as the USA - they can be heard, but they can very easily be simply ignored (although they do now have their own 'parliament' that controls some aspects of the running of the state in Scotland, it has very limited powers).

    That is true, but it should be made clear that the situation in Scotland is that the 'separatist movement' is represented by a political party, which is the party currently in government in Scotland (albeit a minority government, but they are the largest party in Scotland in terms of seats). That is quite clearly statistically significant!

    Not quite. The constitutional position of the monarch is effectively just as a purely ceremonial 'Head of State', and she holds that position in Commonwealth countries. Scotland would, as I understand the SNP position, effectively become a Commonwealth country, like Canada and Australia - politically separate and independent, but still recognising the same ceremonial Head of State.

    That is another option, and it does have some merits. The problem there is that the external affairs and defence policies are still run according to the will of England - same issue as currently with population numbers. For a fully federal UK to work in that way, England would have to be separated for federal purposes (not as a 'nation', obviously, but for administrative reasons) into smaller units so that no one political unit would have the total dominance and power of the Federal Government that England currently has as a complete unit (on some issues, there are some regions of England that are probably more likely to agree with the people of Scotland and/or Wales than they are to agree with the people of London, for example). I suspect there are some in some parts of England (parts of the North and West in particular) who wouldn't be too resistant to that idea, but even if they were a majority in their regions to allow it to happen the vote would have to go through the current parliament, which I strongly suspect it wouldn't do.

    The people of Scotland might be tempted by such a solution, but they can't bring it about. They can't impose their will on England (nor should they!). If the people of England were to adopt such a system, the people of Scotland and Wales might feel much happier about the union overall, but there's no sign of that happening. The alternatives for Scotland are either maintaining the status quo (possibly with gradually increasing devolution if that is permitted by the government in London), or declaring themselves as independent. It's a pretty straight either/or choice, because they don't have the power to implement the alternative 'in between' solution of an effective kind of true federalism.
     
  18. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That was the point of my response. That his examples within the US are not analogous to real separatist movements like the one you describe. There are no major separatist parties in the US. Not even in Texas. They are all fringe groups.

    In the US it is not vague. When you say "country" here, people will assume you mean a completely independent entity.

    I understand that this is technically is not the only definition. But that is how the word is understood here.


    The same could be said for a number of US states. Hawaii and Texas come to mind. We do not consider them separate nations though. I know this for a fact where Texas is concerned, as I have personal and long term experience.


    You can too...if enough English agree with your position you can get your way as well.

    I have already said however that I agree that you need additional representation in the form of a federal government of some kind. I simply think that secession is unnecessary to get you what you need. I dont think desire alone is sufficient reason to secede.
     
  19. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The difference is historic and related to many centuries of entirely independent existence as a separate people with separate culture and separate language. I guess the indigenous people of Hawaii could be considered similar, but Texas less so, since their differences come essentially from the a slightly different development over a couple of centuries from the same root culture. Scotland and England come from entirely different roots culturally - they are not separate developments from one thing, but continuations of cultures which were entirely separate
    for thousands of years (having never been the same in the first place).

    A closer analogy would be if the native American 'nations' had, on European mass migration, grouped together into one geographical state of their own, separate from the USA, developing culturally separate from the USA into a single distinct 'nation' of their own. Entirely different from the recently European-based USA, different language and culture from a different root, and an independent 'state'. Had that independent 'state' later become a part of the USA, it could very well have still have retained its own identity and culture to a large extent, even though it was no longer a separate and independent 'state', and at some point the people might feel that the 'union' of the USA had not been serving their best interests as a 'nation', so they should return to their former status of independence. this is the kind of situation that exists in Scotland.

    There is certainly a difference between 'desire' and 'the settled will of the people'. The problem is if it becomes, over time, the continued, settled will of the Scottish people to leave the union, the alternatives eventually become either allowing them to do so as 'close friends and allies', by peaceful negotiation, or simply conducting a war to keep the will of the people from being acted upon (as happened in Ireland and the USA, to name but two!). I strongly suspect that if the people of Scotland were to decide that was what they really wanted, the other parts of the 'union' would allow them to do so peacefully, and with their best wishes as friends. I don't think there would be any attempt to stop the Scots by leaving from force - quite apart of the lack of desire to do that, the remaining part of the 'union' would not want to be engaged in a war on their own island! The English Civil War was one of the most divisive, vicious and bloody in history, and I suspect that the will of the politicians would be to avoid a repeat of that at all costs!
     
  20. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not in this context IMO.


    That would decide it. We did that already with the civil war. So the matter has been settled for us. Thats why secessionist movements are languishing on the fringe right now.

    I doubt that the vast majority of Scots want independence enough to die for it though. Probably because they are not really being oppressed right now. How many Scots have actually died in these wars they have been pressed into so far? It just doesnt seem like there is a lot of incentive for them to wage war to secede.
     
  21. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    They wouldn't need to, and they know it. After what happened in Ireland, and the subsequent poor relationship between Ireland and the UK for many years (not to mention the Northern Ireland 'troubles'), the UK wouldn't make the same mistakes. I think it's quite clear that if the people of Scotland voted democratically to leave the UK with a clear and decisive majority, the UK wouldn't stand in their way. Better to have the nation in the north as friends and allies than as a war zone full of bitter enemies!

    That's actually one of the points that secessionists make about possible independence for Scotland - the traditional ill feeling between England and Scotland (that has existed for a thousand years or more, much of that through successive attempts of English Kings to 'subdue' the nation of Scotland and take over its rule, which only ever succeeded as an accident of royal birth, and not through the will of the people, or even through conquest!) would have much less reason to exist and prosper among the people if the two nations were able to be friends and neighbors, rather than uneasy bedfellows with one 'partner' in clear charge over the other. To get an idea of the depth of that feeling for 'freedom', you only have to look at the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath, and this portion in particular:
    This is still quite a popular document (and sentiment) in Scotland, and many of the Scots have never been particularly happy members of this 'union'. As much as the 'Braveheart' film was quite obviously romantic hollywood twaddle (that played exceptionally 'fast and loose' with historical fact), that principle of 'freedom' from English rule really is very deeply embedded in the history of Scotland, and in the minds of many of its people.

    The USA and UK have a very good relationship. They generally consider themselves as close friends and political allies (whatever people may think about the oft quoted 'special relationship). Would that friendship still exist to the same extent if the USA was ruled from London? I suspect possibly not! OK, the situation is a little different, but what if the government of the USA were to be taken over by China without the consent of the people, with a 'democracy' that saw China able to rule the USA according to its own cultural principles, just by sheer weight of population numbers? That's not likely to happen, of course, but this is the kind of thing we are talking about here, just on a smaller scale.

    The USA had its Declaration of Independence, as the Scots effectively had theirs several centuries before (and theirs is pretty important to many of them, as the US one is its people, and I suspect probably still would be to many, even if China managed to take over its government, against the will of the people, for a few hundred years).

    Of course, that is all 'emotional' stuff, and doesn't provide any practical 'incentive' to leave the 'union', but that history takes it a little beyond a simple desire by one 'region' to leave a 'country'. It goes much, much deeper than that. Whether or not you would personally agree that separation was the best course of action in practical terms (and certainly by no means all Scots agree with that idea either), such long and deeply held feelings among the people have to be taken into account as a factor in the decision making process.
     
  22. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If that is true, why are the Scots not doing it now? Why are they not already independent?

    Either the majority dont agree with you that it would be that easy....or the majority dont really want to secede. Which is it?


    We would never tolorate such a situation even as long as they have. Had we been in their place we would have waged war long ago.

    In fact, we did.

    Either they do not value their independence as much as we do, or they dont really think they are being oppressed and are not that unhappy with the current situation.

    (btw...our situations were not analogous anyway. They do have a voice within the UK government...its just not as loud as you would like it to be)


    We would wage war if it was done against our will. Guerrilla war if nothing else. I cannot imagine a situation where we would ever accept subjugation. They would have to destroy us.

    If we accepted such a democracy to begin with, willingly? Yeah, I think we'd be ok with it. If there was an alternate reality where the Chinese were pro-democracy like we are, yeah, we'd be fine being a part of it.

    If the government was set up like theirs (Scotland), I would agitate for a federal system to give us more of a voice. Not secession.



    Which is why I do not support their movement. It is basically just a "pride" issue. That is insufficient reason to chop up the UK IMO.


    Of course they matter. They just dont matter enough.
     
  23. usa_students123

    usa_students123 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why should it matter whether you are a citizen of the UK or not to give an opinion about Scotland's independence?

    The UK was not exactly the most positive player in Europe in the past, so maybe its image will improve if Scotland becomes independent, and the UK will be as united as Canada with Australia. ... Some level of close cooperation ("commonwealth"), but not financial union and not a unified foreign policy/military.
     
  24. legojenn

    legojenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,054
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Commonwealth is nothing special. It's more or less a collection of countries where from which politicans of poor Caribbean and African countries make trips to London, Ottawa, Canberra and Wellington asking for money under the guise of learning from them.
     
  25. flounder

    flounder In Memoriam Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    653
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real nice post Bob and very accurate, can one only imagine if the US was like that? They would understand very little as well, it's not that we are snobs and do not care, it's just a vastly different situation. I assume they know this, but I doubt they think about it much.
    Good Luck to the wonderful people of Scotland, Viv does them proud....
     

Share This Page