The Act of Union

[Odysseus]

Quoting Malcolm from 16:14, 17th Jan 2007
I'm sticking to my guns - the Union is better, and Scottish independence would see me moving - sorry, emigrating, to England.

I feel that a lot of the pro-independence arguments are propelled by biased, anti-English nationalists, and have little basis in fact or rationality (real word?).

My personal thoughts:

1) Scotland doesn't have a big enough population to survive. Sure, other countries with smaller populations manage, but how prosperous are they? Scotland, as it stands, is a poor, working class country in general terms. England enjoys a far higher share of the wealth, it's just mismanaged down there which is why the health service and the education systems are screwed up.

2) Tourism isn't the answer to everything, and the oil is running out. What would we trade in, and how much capital would it generate?

3) I even heard the SNP had plans to block non-Scottish students (read: English) students from Universities up here. I only hope these rumours are false, because it really does prove what a bunch of arrogant, brain-dead pigs the SNP are.

4) Alex Salmond isn't God, and he can't solve any problems overnight. It's going to take years for Scotland to stabilise, once the Government down south withdraw their finances from us, their armed forces, etc. And what would the Queen do? Would she remain Queen of England or what?

5) Giving Scotland independence would be giving anti-English pricks like Tommy Sheridan a victory. I'd love it if the SNP got elected (God forbid), tried the whole independence thing, and the UN told them to fuck off. I'd love it.

I still firmly believe that the Independence argument is based more on hatred for the English (no wonder English folk are in favour, they're probably sick of getting a bashing all the time) rather than actual, rational arguments. But, if you want the choice, vote SNP, and I'll vote no [img]littleicons/yellowhappyface.gif[/img]

1) No offence, but if you think a country's strength lies in its population then you're sadly misguided. What exactly IS a 'poor, working class' country? One thats so STRONGLY benefitting from the Union. Your mismanagement arguement hardly strengthens your position either. Scots can organise, surely we could look after our own 'wee' country?

2) Nobody says it is; we've also got technology, renewable energy and various other things to trade in.

3) No doubt you heard this at your 'I wish I was English' parade, along with various other stereotypical conventions.

4) No-one says he is. But he IS an economist and has his own arguements as to why Scotland can be independent. The Monarchy is a sepperate issue altogether.

5) You'd love democracy to be opposed? No offence, but unlike other unionists on this board, whose views are interesting because they are informed, your views are a bit laughable. If you really dislike the idea of a Scottish nation, I'd have to ask why. I'm a nationalist and I don't think of myself as better than anyone, be they english, french, welsh or whatever.

Basically, the unionists tell us we're too stupid and weak to rule ourselves. Some Nats can be romantics, but there are others who are a bit more pragmatic. Either way, we're MULTIPLYING!!!

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

[David Bean]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 00:25, 17th Jan 2007
Well, Bean, old chap, the answer that springs to mind is that an independant Scotland could enact protectionist economic measures and provide considerable subsidies to national industry.

Mind you, I think that would kill any hopes of joining the EU, or of maintaining England as a friendly trading partner. Or most of the world, for that matter. Bloody age of (relatively) free trade that we live in and all...

You're right enough with the second part of that (indeed there's no thought about it - you can't simultaneously be in a customs union and impose trade barriers), but you're definitely wrong in your first premise that trade barriers and subsidies would do anything to assist the Scottish economy. In fact, in the long-run all you'd do is to create a country full of subsidy junkies who'd never be able to compete with the rest of the world, even assuming the world had any interest in trading with us after that kind of behaviour whilst, in the mean time, raising prices to intolerable levels for domestic consumers, increasing poverty and basically necessitating the creation of a Soviet economy in a country about a millionth the size. Which doesn't sound like a very good idea, really, does it?

Iain: I hardly think that incompetence in the Scottish Parliament is limited to the Lib/Lab benches.

Donkey: we can't change the legal status of Scotland year on year to suit the whims of the moment, so any referendum has to be based on an obvious groundswell of popular support for independence. I'm sure the Scots Nats would be perfectly happy to hold a referendum once every sixmonth until they bored the Scottish people into giving them the answer they were looking for, but I should hope that not even the collective wisdom of the Scottish Parliament is poor enough to accede to that.

Griggsy: I hope you weren't being serious with that last post, because if so you've obviously overlooked the fact that bullying some pensioner out of a safe seat for a few new arrivals from a newly-independent Scotland would be about as easy for the Labour Party as flogging a peerage or two. Unless you were planning to lock the Scots in?

What upsets me most about this debate is the way that the NAts have been allowed to control it. The unionists have been, to quote Danny Concannon remarking on a similar situation, 'bumfuzzled'. Why do they continually portray the Union as the least worst option? Why can they not celebrate it, pointing to the cultural, economic and social benefits that have accrued to people from all parts of our Union? Why haven't they said to people, look, you can be of the country of Ben Nevis, or the country of Ben Nevis, Snowdon and Scarfell Pike? Why accept less?

They've also overlooked the argument from natural justice. I was born a British citizen; it's on my passport, it's on my birth certificate and it's as near as we can get to what I signed up for. I DIDN'T sign up to be a member of some hypothetical independent Scotland, and any attempt to tell me that actually, I'm sorry, your citizenship of England, Wales and Northern Ireland has been revoked, for now you're a Scot and only a Scot - well, I'd regard that as an offence to my personal identy far deeper than those often complained about by other communities. How dare they even consider it?

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[exnihilo]

Totally agree, Mr Bean. If Douglas Alexander's arguments on Newsnight last night were the best that can be marshalled for the Union then we might as well call it a day. There are far better arguments, thankfully, but there seems to be a real dearth of competent speakers to put them forward.

I forget - but I'm about to check - is the Debating Society discussing the motion at all? Given the election in May it would seem sensible...

[Gubbins]

Speaking from the fence, I wonder this: given the current political drive towards a more self-governing Scotland and the simultaneous thrust for a more unified Europe, I wonder how the pro-independence movement would feel about becoming a small state of the United Europe, instead of a large state in the United Kingdom.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[Frank]

From the point of view of someone is largely undecided on the matter but leans generally to the Nationalist side of the debate , I have to say that I agree heartily with David Bean's closing remarks in his last post.

Whilst it does seem that the Nationalists have been the articulate ones in the majority of debates on the topic, I cannot help but be dismayed by the Unionists when so few are willing to say (without just bashing the Nats) "Actually, our way is best".

I've seen plenty relatively unbiased pro-Nationalist cases, but extremely few for pro-Unionists.

It certainly doesn't help that my very own academic son is perpetually driving more and more people away from sensible debate, let alone one side to anotherin the argument at hand! (My son is Malcolm)

As it stands, I am inclined to believe that the vast majority of problems could, and perhaps should be solved by the federalist option. Certainly it seems the most logical. The Union is certainly not evidently a terrible thing. And generally speaking, life seems okay at the moment, but those addressing the issue do raise good questions and points. Perhaps the majority of these can be solved within the Union rather than simply breaking it to pieces?

I do consider myself British, but secondary to Scottish, but to the exclusion of neither.

If the problems of Scotland itself can be dealt with independently, but at the cost of the Union, maybe it is possible to find a better solution where our problems can be dealt with and the Union preserved?

In that respect, federalism, as a very idea seems infinitely more appealing than strict Unionism or Nationalism.

In the space of one post, I think I've convinced myself I am, for now, a Federalist (capital F, as opposed to Nationalist and Unionised, making us the 'z-axis'...woo!).

Any arguments against Federalism?

(EDIT: As for a United Europe, such a thin would only seem logical, to me, in terms of a fully Federal entity, in a sense similar to the US in principle...)

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[oddly familiar]

Quoting exnihilo from 18:19, 17th Jan 2007
There's a degree of overlap, but simply adding an English Parliament is not the same as going the whole hog and addressing how they all relate to one another in a constitutional framework, federalising is a step further than either the one or many English assemblies.

All of the Nationalist arguments based on economics could be solved by the federalisation of the union, non? With Scotland free to dictate its own economic policy, but with the added benefit of the safety net of the rest of the UK for when things inevitably go wrong (nobody is perfect and some bad decisions will be made), where is the catch?
Continued union to England, Wales and NI allows Scotland to keep the grand British heritage of which it is a part, and it wouldn't separate families or make things difficult for businesses.

Add to that staying in the £ area, which is far stronger than the Euro, and the fact that Scotland's voice internationally is far stronger as part of the UK than on its own, any other reason for wanting independence would simply be parochialism.

Edit: I too, like Frank, seem to have convinced myself of federalism in the space of one post. Apologies for the duplication of anything he wrote, other than to say: "Go, Axis of Z!"

[hr]

saru mo ki kara ochiru

[Griggsy]

[/quote]


Griggsy: I hope you weren't being serious with that last post, because if so you've obviously overlooked the fact that bullying some pensioner out of a safe seat for a few new arrivals from a newly-independent Scotland would be about as easy for the Labour Party as flogging a peerage or two. Unless you were planning to lock the Scots in?



[hr]

Psalm 91:7[/quote]

You're missing the point - with a fully independent Scotland and Scottish Parliament, Gordon Brown and Co would not be allowed to sit in the English Parliament as a Labour MP, they would have to sit in the Scottish Parliament so the Labour government in England would be fucked

[hr]

'I run wild in the shadowy jungle of erotic adventures.'

[Griggsy]

Quoting Griggsy from 21:31, 17th Jan 2007

Bean: I hope you weren't being serious with that last post, because if so you've obviously overlooked the fact that bullying some pensioner out of a safe seat for a few new arrivals from a newly-independent Scotland would be about as easy for the Labour Party as flogging a peerage or two. Unless you were planning to lock the Scots in?



[hr]

Psalm 91:7[/quote]

You're missing the point - with a fully independent Scotland and Scottish Parliament, Gordon Brown and Co would not be allowed to sit in the English Parliament as a Labour MP, they would have to sit in the Scottish Parliament so the Labour government in England would be fucked

[hr]

'I run wild in the shadowy jungle of erotic adventures.'[/quote]

[Colin]

Quoting Griggsy from 21:32, 17th Jan 2007
You're missing the point - with a fully independent Scotland and Scottish Parliament, Gordon Brown and Co would not be allowed to sit in the English Parliament as a Labour MP, they would have to sit in the Scottish Parliament so the Labour government in England would be fucked

I suspect you have missed the point of Bean's response. I think his point is that Brown et al would (possibly/probably) join the ranks of people who decided to move to England to remain part of the UK, so they could get nice safe Labour seats down south and keep their jobs. Under the assumption that they are more interested in being in charge of an important country than representing the needs of the good people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Maybe you are suggesting that Gordon actually cares more for his constituency than his cabinet role (which would be nice), but I don't think that is the SNP party line, or very likely.

[Colin]

Quoting exnihilo from 18:19, 17th Jan 2007
There's a degree of overlap, but simply adding an English Parliament is not the same as going the whole hog and addressing how they all relate to one another in a constitutional framework, federalising is a step further than either the one or many English assemblies.

Ah, this is what I suspected you meant. If you will permit my interpreting of your words then we could regard federalising as doing devolution properly, as opposed to half measures in some or all of the countries in the UK, which appears to be the current situation and one of the causes of the current debate.

I think I am quite in favour of a Federal UK as devolution done properly; but then I have always said that they should have had an English parliament and taken the time to sort out some constitutional sense at the same time as they set up the Scots parliament. Could have thrown the House of Lords reform in at the same time and really made some changes!

[Odysseus]

Quoting Colin from 21:59, 17th Jan 2007

Quoting exnihilo from 18:19, 17th Jan 2007
There's a degree of overlap, but simply adding an English Parliament is not the same as going the whole hog and addressing how they all relate to one another in a constitutional framework, federalising is a step further than either the one or many English assemblies.

Ah, this is what I suspected you meant. If you will permit my interpreting of your words then we could regard federalising as doing devolution properly, as opposed to half measures in some or all of the countries in the UK, which appears to be the current situation and one of the causes of the current debate.

I think I am quite in favour of a Federal UK as devolution done properly; but then I have always said that they should have had an English parliament and taken the time to sort out some constitutional sense at the same time as they set up the Scots parliament. Could have thrown the House of Lords reform in at the same time and really made some changes!

[hr]

Walk into the bright lights of sorrow, oh drink a bit of wine and we both might go tommorow, my love...

[David Bean]

I suspect you have missed the point of Bean's response. I think his point is that Brown et al would (possibly/probably) join the ranks of people who decided to move to England to remain part of the UK, so they could get nice safe Labour seats down south and keep their jobs. Under the assumption that they are more interested in being in charge of an important country than representing the needs of the good people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Maybe you are suggesting that Gordon actually cares more for his constituency than his cabinet role (which would be nice), but I don't think that is the SNP party line, or very likely.

Exactly, thanks for saving my typing fingers. I don;t want to class Scotland as a 'not important' potential country, but the fact is that if all of them wanted to remain in the English/British-minus-Scotland Parliament, it wouldn't be very hard to arrange.

I'll go a bit further in what I said in my last post, and say that whilst I didn't see (but can well imagine) Douglas Alexander's more recent effort, this was something I was so concerned about the last time I saw this debate on Newsnight Scotland when a member of the Scottish COnservative Party frankly embarassed himself, that I emailed and got into a correspondance with Annabel Gouldie, the leader of the party. I'm afraid to say, supporter (and member) of the party though I am, I didn't get much satisfaction. She assured me that the three major unionist parties were working together on the matter behind the scenes, but didn't say anything about any plans to make the message public, or change it to make it sound less, well, suicide-inducing. Reading between the lines, then, we can conclude that Scottish Unionism is as much of a shamb;es as the rest of the Scottish Parliament, and someone has to do something, and quickly. But don't tell Alec - don't want to give the ol' bastard (whom I actually respect and quite like personally) any ideas!

I do think that federalism is an option, though. Anything but divorce, as far as I can see. The Union is, like the Monarchy and a couple of other things to do with civil liberties, one of my red-line issues: if they get rid of it, I'm going to be pretty much through with this country.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Frank]

I may be jumping the gun, but it seems Federalism, after thinking about it a bit more, is essentially the answer that almost everyone wants, but for both the Nationalist and Unionist 'diehards' (well, everyone who's made a clear case either way) it would be, essentially, them saying they got it wrong, or are changing their stance

In my opinion it'd be the most legitimate and time saving thing ever enacted in politics, and thus a highly respectable move for folks to say "Actually, I like being Scottish and British!", or alternatively being able to say "I don't mind, I'm British" etc with everything being (ideally) politically, economically, socially and aesthetically sound.


So, if anyone wants cheap and easy power (or to do the right thing, annoying how they coincide), it'd seem to me the money (or success, at least) lies with ushering in the age of British Federalism. It'd also make it a true Union of Kingdoms...when you marry you don't become one person...that's just silly. There's still two (or more, in this case) mouths to feed!

So, who's up for starting the Federalist movement from here in St Andrews? A cross party union to save the union and solve strictly national without destroying any of the constituents in the process?

The only question left is:

"What's the catch?"

What is missing from it? It seems too good to be true?

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[novium]

gah! Ok. You know what? As an American, my only contribution to this argument when it inevitably comes up while I am hanging out with a bunch of people is to argue federalism as a solution. I felt I could contribute on a theoretical level even if I felt somewhat excluded when it came to the particulars. It always seemed like a good compromise between the two, although it is true that I am most likely biased in this by my nationality. But still! Everytime, I was completely shot down, and the argument ceaselessly raged pointlessly on.

Where have all these federalists come from? Has there been some development that made it suddenly more appealing? Or have you always been hiding in the woodwork, waiting to come out?

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Griggsy]

Quoting David Bean from 01:19, 18th Jan 2007

I suspect you have missed the point of Bean's response. I think his point is that Brown et al would (possibly/probably) join the ranks of people who decided to move to England to remain part of the UK, so they could get nice safe Labour seats down south and keep their jobs. Under the assumption that they are more interested in being in charge of an important country than representing the needs of the good people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Maybe you are suggesting that Gordon actually cares more for his constituency than his cabinet role (which would be nice), but I don't think that is the SNP party line, or very likely.

Exactly, thanks for saving my typing fingers. I don;t want to class Scotland as a 'not important' potential country, but the fact is that if all of them wanted to remain in the English/British-minus-Scotland Parliament, it wouldn't be very hard to arrange.

I'll go a bit further in what I said in my last post, and say that whilst I didn't see (but can well imagine) Douglas Alexander's more recent effort, this was something I was so concerned about the last time I saw this debate on Newsnight Scotland when a member of the Scottish COnservative Party frankly embarassed himself, that I emailed and got into a correspondance with Annabel Gouldie, the leader of the party. I'm afraid to say, supporter (and member) of the party though I am, I didn't get much satisfaction. She assured me that the three major unionist parties were working together on the matter behind the scenes, but didn't say anything about any plans to make the message public, or change it to make it sound less, well, suicide-inducing. Reading between the lines, then, we can conclude that Scottish Unionism is as much of a shamb;es as the rest of the Scottish Parliament, and someone has to do something, and quickly. But don't tell Alec - don't want to give the ol' bastard (whom I actually respect and quite like personally) any ideas!

I do think that federalism is an option, though. Anything but divorce, as far as I can see. The Union is, like the Monarchy and a couple of other things to do with civil liberties, one of my red-line issues: if they get rid of it, I'm going to be pretty much through with this country.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

Ahh I understand now, but it's still a bit gash...I think that if independence came Scottish politicians representing Scottish constituencies wouldn't be allowed to move into a different country's constituency. You wouldn't see an English MP moving to a region in France would you?

[hr]

'I run wild in the shadowy jungle of erotic adventures.'

[exnihilo]

You might do. There are certainly a few MEPs representing regions in countries other than their homeland.

[AlenWatters]

After the Revolution, after we've put up all the barbed wire and deported all non pure-bred Scots, you will actually be able to choose between keeping your British passport, or getting a new Scottish one. A similar agreement exist between the UK and Ireland. Irish citizens have more rights in the UK than other EU countries, regarding things like voting and standng for parliament.

The problem with finding other ways of talking up the union is that Labour politicians in particular cannot get to close to wrapping themselves up in the Union Flag - it would make it rather difficult in certain parts of the country (ok, the West).

And besides, what social and cultural benefits would be forever lost post independence? It is an argument I find hard to understand. We are still very close culturally and socially to the Irish, for example. Scots will always go and work in London, and continue to get some of the best jobs. English people won't stop buying Franz Ferdinand CDs or Jack Vettriano prints. We'll still get Eastenders (and Newsnight). Life will go on.

[hr]

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~snpsoc/

[exnihilo]

So the only change would be the sudden loss of revenue?

[Frank]

Quoting novium from 06:10, 18th Jan 2007
Where have all these federalists come from? Has there been some development that made it suddenly more appealing? Or have you always been hiding in the woodwork, waiting to come out?

It would seem that we have, literally... found ourselves.

How archetypally studentish! Maybe federalism will be this century's communism?

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[ascii]

Quoting Frank from 14:32, 18th Jan 2007

Quoting novium from 06:10, 18th Jan 2007
Where have all these federalists come from? Has there been some development that made it suddenly more appealing? Or have you always been hiding in the woodwork, waiting to come out?

It would seem that we have, literally... found ourselves.

How archetypally studentish! Maybe federalism will be this century's communism?

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

Don't be so quick to hail federalism as the one solution. England would be such a dominant partner in the Federalised Kingdom which could lead to problems. One solution would be to have Scotland, Wales, NI and English regions, but there doesn't seem to be any appetite for that at the moment.

The way to minimise arguments over money would be to devolve fiscal powers to a large extent, but are the unionists who are skeptical of devolution happy for holyrood to take over taxation? If I was a unionist, I would be worried about the slippery slopes to independence.

Donald Dewar said that devolution was a process and not an event. There's messy things about the current system, but although the current constitutional arrangements can be tidied up and improved, I don't think that there exists a magic, federal solution.