Scottish Independence

[JackFrost]

Yeah, I know. Thanks to the legal loophole by not being part of the ERM II thing. Very smart, Sweden.

[Saim]

Do people care about the language? From what I have read, it seems that they, in general, are content with English, sometimes turning to Scots when craving to be a little spiced up with local peculiarities, while especially Scots Gaelic is neglected.

Really? I thought it was the opposite. It's true that Scots has more speakers, but Gaelic has immersion schools and a greater level of official recognition as per the European Charter for Minority Languages, as well as per Scottish law (compare the Gaelic Language Act of 2005 to the more token recognition of Scots). Scots is hardly even seen as a language by many, and I think Gaelic is much more popular amongst nationalists and language activists because it's much more distinct from Inglis than Scots is.

[hlysnan]

Maybe just to make you think a bit more with another example of a country using its own interest to keep a country from joining the union. I'm sure you're aware of the situation about Cyprus in some way, so do you think it would not veto Turkey's entry into the union while Turkey still de-facto controls half of its territory?

Of course it would, but those are things that directly affect a country with power to veto. If Scotland is vetoed by any country, they'll just have attention drawn to their own internal problems, when they give their reasoning.

I know. The question is, will an independent Scotland be considered a new applicant or not? The UK and Denmark were already members of the EU when they negotiated the euro opt-out.

Well, I don't really have much of an idea of which way it will go, but I don't think it makes a big difference.

[Hunef]

Every municipality should be independent then!

Yes, I agree. It only suffices to have a common foreign policy (for safety reasons). Only the Stockholm region's (now the capital of Sweden) municipalities would lose on this, especially the filthy rich ones with no endemic entrepreneurial culture (*caugh* Danderyd *caugh*).

Yeah! No country should have more than 20 million inhabitants.

I agree, but I'd say no more than 10 million. And no country should be bigger than 1,000,000 km² (unless the population falls below 100,000). I don't like the thought that a small group of people (presidents etc.) can have such a huge power by controlling a large country. Optimally every country should have a direct democracy added to the population and area restrictions. If one country behaves badly there should be the possibility that the remaining countries perform a direct vote what to do about it (annihilating it from the surface of the earth or whatever).

[Leviwosc]

I'm perfectly okay with it. I always believed that if a people wants to become independent no one should stop them being independent. If it was up to me, the world would know already for years countries like Basqye Country, Kurdistan, South Ossetia and thus also Scotland.

One demand... the kilt should become a mandatory garment for boys and men.

[Saim]

Scotland's split pretty much down the middle on independence. It's not unanimous there.

[hlysnan]

Last time I heard it was around 30% for independence, but large majority for further devolution.

Also, if I remember correctly and I'm going off-topic, Scottish independence and Ulster republicanism seem to be more popular in England and Wales than in their respective lands.

[Leviwosc]

You mean the English themselves want to get rid of the Scottish?

Sounds a bit like the Dutch who wanted to get rid of the Netherlands Antilles.

[hlysnan]

Apparently!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... dence.html

[loqu]

I so love it when a country splits. If it's a large and powerful one, I'd have a boner.

Hahaha, I find it exciting also.

Most likely it'll need an approval from all other member states, something that might not be likely since France and Spain could veto it just not to give the Basques, Catalans, etc. the reason to follow the Scots' path. Yet, the nationalists argue that Scotland voluntarily joined with England to create the UK and it's always been seen as a country within the UK. It might please the French and Spaniards enough since the Basque Country and Catalonia didn't voluntarily join France and Spain.

LOL you know I'm the first one to support an independent Catalonia and Basque Country, but that's just untrue, and something Catalan and Basque nationalists love to repeat. Of course Catalonia and the Basque Country joined voluntarily, I mean, as voluntarily as it could get in those times. Democracy didn't exist so it was just a matter of what the king and queen decided to do. Catalonia was part of the Crown of Aragón and its king decided to marry the queen of Castile. And about the Basque Country, it has formed the same political entity with Castile since around the 10th century or so.

Surprisingly enough, unlike Catalonia and the Basque Country, my nation was indeed conquered by Castile in a century-long holy war, but no one seems to remember that, inside or outside Spain.

And hlysnan: yes, I can assure you, Spain would for sure veto an accession of Scotland into the EU. Just like it doesn't want to recognize Kosovo for the same reasons.

[JackFrost]

Oh I do know when your country got taken over for good: the end of the Reconquista in 1492. They hammer that in the American kids' head since it's related to the discovery of the Americas.

Anyways, my bad. Yeah, it did voluntarily join. To think about it, it's hazy when Scotland joined. The Scottish Parliament did vote to ratify the Acts of Union 1707 and dissolve itself, but it was a unpopular decision to the Scottish population. The elite supposedly had no choice because the country was under a huge financial distress (risk of default). So it had a touch of democracy, but not with the consent of the people (not surprising considering how it used to be back then).

[Set]

Have they said what they'd make their capital? I always just assumed it'd be Edinburgh, but I can tell you that this is a pretty damn English city and any Scottish resentment for England is also directed in a weaker way towards Edinburgh.

I'm in favour of people deciding their own fate rather than some old guy in some far off city doing it for them, especially if it's someone with a completely different language and culture, especially especially if that someone also aims to suppress minorities in fear of losing territorial integrity. However, none of this is really the case in Scotland. To me it just seems like an issue of pride and thus this form of nationalism isn't too far different from English nationalism and in my opinion a completely invalid reason for independence. The Scots I've come across who are the most fervent independentistas are also the most anti-English and the most insuffrably stupid.

In my perfect world, there would be no nations, just local forms of pure democratic councils with channels for global cooperation, but I think Scottish independence comes from a place of needing to feel different from another group (who really aren't that different anyway) and that only creates further tensions between people, tensions which for the most part don't exist anymore. Why re-ignite them?

It would be better to have no England, no Scotland, no Wales, etc. rather than even more nation states. Let nationalism die already!

EDIT: BTW, I am actually from England, and probably a bit of an imperialist bastard!

[Saim]

Surprisingly enough, unlike Catalonia and the Basque Country, my nation was indeed conquered by Castile in a century-long holy war, but no one seems to remember that, inside or outside Spain.

Did your nation even exist as a concept before it was Castillianized though? It sounds like if I said "my nation was conquered by the English" when really my nation didn't exist as a culture/identity until after it was colonized, and the culture that was present here before was markedly different.

I don't mean to offend you, just inquiring.

[loqu]

No nation existed in the Iberian Peninsula as identities until the 19th century, Saim. They were just political entities of people loyal to a King or Queen who couldn't care less which culture they had or which language they spoke. Well, if something mattered it was religion for sure, but nothing else.

Even then, the Andalusiyya was a reality. Where do you wanna get?

[kalemiye]

Surprisingly enough, unlike Catalonia and the Basque Country, my nation the territory in which I live was indeed conquered by Castile in a century-long holy war, but no one seems to remember that, inside or outside Spain.

Hay quien se acuerda y te manda este mensaje:

Did your nation even exist as a concept before it was Castillianized though? I

The language spoken is Castilian, but still the culture is different from inner Castile's for a variety of reasons.

Más asesináis ustedes los castellanos, que ponéis bombas y matáis 50 criaturas (...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUQKSawP3ko

My job here is done.

[Remis]

Have they said what they'd make their capital? I always just assumed it'd be Edinburgh, but I can tell you that this is a pretty damn English city and any Scottish resentment for England is also directed in a weaker way towards Edinburgh.

Glasgow? Or Aberdeen, even.

[hlysnan]

Not Scottish enough. Probably Inbhir Nis.

[loqu]

My job here is done.

JAJAJAJA qué grande eres.

[Ciarán12]

I'm in favour of people deciding their own fate rather than some old guy in some far off city doing it for them, especially if it's someone with a completely different language and culture, especially especially if that someone also aims to suppress minorities in fear of losing territorial integrity. However, none of this is really the case in Scotland. To me it just seems like an issue of pride and thus this form of nationalism isn't too far different from English nationalism and in my opinion a completely invalid reason for independence. The Scots I've come across who are the most fervent independentistas are also the most anti-English and the most insuffrably stupid.

In my perfect world, there would be no nations, just local forms of pure democratic councils with channels for global cooperation, but I think Scottish independence comes from a place of needing to feel different from another group (who really aren't that different anyway) and that only creates further tensions between people, tensions which for the most part don't exist anymore. Why re-ignite them?

It would be better to have no England, no Scotland, no Wales, etc. rather than even more nation states. Let nationalism die already!

EDIT: BTW, I am actually from England, and probably a bit of an imperialist bastard!

Wow, ok. When you say that they (the English) are "not that different anyway", what do you mean? Scotland is (originally) an entity that gives borders to the land of the Gaelic people who live/lived there. To say that the Gaels (a Celtic people) are the same as the English (a Germanic people) is pretty ignorant. If you don't believe that these are valid identities for people in modern times, then that's because YOU don't feel that way. Other people do. When I read about the Gaels I think "us". Cultural/linguistic similarities between these people today have not always existed, and are a bad thing, a source of cultural/linguistic genocide and something that I believe should be reversed. The Scots had a unique language and culture. The weren't English. Then that started to change, for whatever reasons, and they have become Anglicized. They need to save what they have left of their original culture, before it's too late. A national sentiment will make people realise who they are and what they have and maybe the culture can be saved. You either do not appreciate how different the cultures were/are, or you place no value on them. We must preserve the cultures and languages of the world. I understand that there are many scots who do not feel that Gaelic has anything to do with them, either because they just don't care about cultures and heritage or because they are not of Gaelic decent. Perhaps the Scottish border should be redrawn to only include Gaelic Scots, and they can have there own country and the rest can stay in Britain. Or maybe the Low Lands Scots can move back to England. Either way, the pre-Anglo-Saxon Gaelic people of Scotland are most emphatically NOT the same as the English and they deserve their own country.

And you are and imperialist bastard.

[Saim]

The Scots had a unique language and culture.

Unique languages and culture. There never was one Scottish language group; this I think is the most linguistically homogenous Scotland's been in known history (with the decline of Scots and Scottish Gaelic)

Perhaps the Scottish border should be redrawn to only include Gaelic Scots,

Impossible if you define it in ancestry or self-identification terms like you just did, as plenty of people living in Lowland Scotland have Gaelic ancestry or have an affinity for Gaelic culture. A lot of Lowland Scotland was also Gaelic-speaking when the Anglo-Saxons came, although yes lots of it was British-speaking before it was Anglicized.

and they can have there own country and the rest can stay in Britain.

Or maybe the Low Lands Scots can move back to England.

That's just wrong. Asserting a minority's rights should not turn into xenophobia against the dominant group.

Lowland Scots also have a unique language, culture and identity. Funny that, Germanic people can also have culture.

Either way, the pre-Anglo-Saxon Gaelic people of Scotland are most emphatically NOT the same as the English and they deserve their own country.

Why does having a different culture mean you absolutely must get your own country? I find this narrative too simplistic. It's the same narrative ("one language, one country!") that's used to justify linguicide and the like in the first place.