Posted on 05/25/2012 2:55:29 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Supporters of independence for Scotland will launch on Friday what they say is the biggest grassroots campaign in Scottish history, a move that could result in the demise of a 305-year-old union with England and the breakup of Britain.
Seeking to tap into a cocktail of historical rivalry, opposing political tastes, and a perception that the British parliament in London does not nurture Scotland's national interests, the "Yes Scotland" campaign says it wants to win a referendum on independence in 2014 and for the country to become fully independent by 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...
“It is England rather than Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland, whose interests get subsumed in the current Union (see my earlier post above about the lack of a specifically English assembly of any kind while Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each have one).”
England is the dominant partner; if they lost out in it they’d drop it like Jamaica or Uganda.
“Not all Scots are Celtic.”
Most are; there are some Pakistanis in Ireland, but it is by and large a Celtic country. They didn’t grow up from the land; they migrated across Europe until there was further to go. That is why they are found in the northwest corners of Spain and France as well.
“As it is, England is nothing but an abstract federal district for the UK.”
I agree, and that is why in the past I’ve raised issues about these “districts” fielding “national teams” for the World Cup. California is more of a country than any of them; if we have to play as the “United States” make them play as the “United Kingdom”.
“English national identity has been completely subsumed into British identity”
“English identity” is like “American identity”; they are not as distinct ethnically as Scots, Welsh, or Irish. They’ve all mixed with others to some degree, but England probably more than most. They went from Celtic to Saxon to Norman, with Dane as well. I think it is harder to define “English” (except as the language of the Saxons).
You are SO correct...England has a lot to gain by Scottish MPs leaving Westminster.
Scotland is the UK’s footrest? You don’t have a clue do you? The English are taken for granted in the UK. We have a serious democratic deficit in England, the Scotch and the Northern Irish (and to a lesser degree the Welsh) get to run their own affairs whilst still voting to impose health and social policies on England at Westminster. Or celtic ‘brethren’ have got themselves into the position of being Britain’s privileged citizens lording it over the majority, the English, who are second class British citizens thanks to devolution. As far as I’m concerned, celtic nationalism isn’t about independence for those countries, it is about England’s independence from its Celtic overlords, particularly the scotch, who, as Scotsman correctly implies, are over-represented in positions of power in London....
The United Kingdom is a state, not a country.
Scotland, England, NI and Wales remain therefore countries.
They are countries that are a part of a larger state.
The football team argument therefore is a non-starter. Irrelevant.
Watching Scotland’s friendly with the US last night, the commentators discussed the problems with the “British” team that was to be fielded for the 2012 Olympics. The soccer organizations of Scotland & Wales told their players not to participate, as they felt it would jeopardize their independence in terms of FIFA. They fear that FIFA (which has more members than the UN) would consider them part of the larger country (and make them play as part of one).
A very valid concern; you’ll never convince countries that are at war with Britain that they’re individual countries.
“the Scotch and the Northern Irish (and to a lesser degree the Welsh) get to run their own affairs whilst still voting to impose health and social policies on England at Westminster.”
I hear the same complaints from “British” Canadians (a misleading term, as “former Commonwealth Canadians” would be more fitting given the umbers from Asia) about the Quebecois; the fact is that in both cases they would be much smaller, insignificant countries without them.
“it is about England’s independence from its Celtic overlords, particularly the scotch, who, as Scotsman correctly implies, are over-represented in positions of power in London”
I’d believe that if there was a Scottish monarch on the money, or if they used the flag of Wales (the best of the bunch in terms of flags), or if reunion with Ireland was on a ballot in their six northern counties.
Even the criteria you somewhat arbitrarily select are not particularly sound. You may have overlooked the doubtless uncomfortable (for you) facts that the Union began when a Scottish monarch (James Sixth and First)was invited to take over the English throne; and that the present constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland were endorsed in a referendum by the people of the island of Ireland as a whole, both the North and the Republic.
Yes, and natives sold Manhattan for $24; the deals those people made died with them.
I don’t think the native Irish in the north put much stock in what southerners (who did win their independence) signed away for their northern kinsmen); a civil war was fought in Ireland over the question, so I don’t think the betrayal of the north was very popular. Ireland will get its six counties because of their birthrate; England clung to the industry in the north, but that died decades ago - it is now an economic albatross around their necks.
Contrary to popular belief, the Monarchy is more Scottish than English. The Queen’s mother was more Scottish than her father was English, the QM was born at Glamis Castle and was the daughter of a Scottish Earl, and in case you hadn’t noticed, the whole family spend more time poncing around at Balmoral in kilts than they do at Buckingham Palace, which they have long been known to dislike. And don’t forget that it was a Scottish King who inherited the English throne, not the other way around.
The Welsh are a proud people, but they aren’t quite as nationalistic as the Scots. They are more likely to see themselves as British, but even those who don’t for the most part don’t want independence because they know that the UK public sector is a major employer there.
As for Northern Ireland, they have devolution and the right to vote for parties that want re-union with Ireland. Unfortunately, most of them don’t believe in this, so we are stuck with them.
The English are taken for granted. The celts would go apes*it if they were treated like second-class British citizens the way we are. They have more democracy, greater control over their own affairs, and greater control over OUR affairs, which I wouldn’t mind if it was reciprocated, but it isn’t.
If these are the terms by which the union must be maintained, by granting them privileged status over the majority, I would rather we cut them loose, sadly, we won’t be asked, which is par for the course these days, so the question of whether the scotch shall continue to mooch off our taxes and rule over us or piss off and leave us to ourselves is only in their hands, not ours...
Britain wanted to give home rule to all of Ireland, it was the Protestants of the North who started to import guns to resist anyone, including the Crown, who tried to impose 'Rome Rule' on them. In any case, I doubt NI is going to be rushing to merge itself with the economic basket case that is the South....
Britain wanted to give home rule to all of Ireland, it was the Protestants of the North who started to import guns to resist anyone, including the Crown, who tried to impose 'Rome Rule' on them. In any case, I doubt NI is going to be rushing to merge itself with the economic basket case that is the South....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.