The Union as Seen from Afar

47 comments

3 pings

Skip to comment form ↓

1. 

   Mack in Texas

   August 30, 2012 at 11:40 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   Well said, Pearl of Tyburn! Not all Britons are Scots, but all Scots are Britons, and are blessed in having created a GREAT Britain. Scotland has never been some sort of mist-covered fantasy living in an Edenic isolation; she has always been a world player, even in the past, through her cultural and governmental ties with other nations. In the beginning of the Union, Great Britain was ruled by Scots kings, not English ones, and although dynasties change, the greatness of the United Kingdom and Her many cultures and people never diminishes. I pray Scotland will not deny her long and glorious heritage for some sort of shabby people’s republic.

   1. 

      Tom Hall

      September 1, 2012 at 9:59 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

      If republics are so shabby, what are you doing living in one? Or has the USA become a monarchy while the rest of the world wsn’t watching, and not told us yet?

2. 

   Juteman

   August 31, 2012 at 4:27 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   So you will be lobbying for the USA to rejoin the wonderful British Emnpire?
   Alba gu brath.

3. 

   Pearl of Tyburn

   August 31, 2012 at 7:47 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   Thank you so much, Mack! I agree with your statements wholly and completely. To settle for being a second-hand, crackerbox republic is to deny all that Scotland was and is. I can’t help but think what famous Scots like Major John Pitcairn and Sir John Moore, as well as countless others who gave their lives fighting for Britian, must think of all this. They’re probably turning over in their graves.

   God Bless,
   Pearl of Tyburn

   1. 

      Ross

      September 1, 2012 at 11:39 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

      You are so out of touch in the most hilarious way. I would love to see a scenario where when Wee Davie Cameron starts bringing those welfare cuts to the elderly of Scotland and people have to pay for prescriptions and education, and the less well off are only scraping enough to get by and bemoan the UK government for not looking out for the interests of the people, and want to rid themselves of the corruption of Westminster, i would love to see you chap on their door giving them a lecture about how disgusted good ol’ Walter Scott would be at Old lady Mctavish wanting a more competent Scottish government in full control so she can get her meds

4. 

   Ross

   August 31, 2012 at 8:05 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   You have completely missed the ball with this, you have demonstrated the fundamental characteristic of the Unionist position. Clinging on to the past. I don’t know how much research you’ve actually done on this topic, but from this piece I can take a wild guess at looking at a few tweets from Scottish Nationalists.

   I have for a while now cringed at the fact that Unionists parroted that an argument for Scottish independence is based on the foundation on an appeal to emotion, blind nationalism and yet in the next sentence spout things like “Well Scotland had a huge role in the world’s biggest empire 100 years ago! That makes me proud to be British, away with you petty Nationalist with your ‘Home rule’”

   You would think from listening to unionists that the Scottish independence movement is nothing but a bunch of uninformed Braveheart fanatics that have hourly rants about how evil English people are.

   So in this piece not one solid argument for Scotland staying in the Union. There were the classic hits; ‘Be part of the proud nation of Britain’ (emotional pish) and ‘Independence would probably make Scotland go bust’ (I’ll get to that later). And then there was an argument rarely dragged out because it’s so shit; ‘Well Scotland is just being selfish, trying to rid itself of the responsibility of the UK debt’ Which is defunct when you actually use that brain you got there to realize Scotland would take it’s share of the UK debt with independence.

   OK, so will Scotland be a wee poor country after independence. Nope. Scotland already pays it’s way within the union. Many Unionists would have you believe that Scotland benefits financially from the Union. It does not. Scotland’s revenue is given straight to Westminster to spend (get to that later), in return Westminster gives the Scottish Government ‘pocket money’ to spend to spend on Scotland. Now here’s a good detail. The money given to Westminster is more than the pocket money Westminster gives back to Scotland, thus, come independence, Scotland will have more money to spend ON Scotland. Scotland would benefit financially from independence,and most likely spend the money on more useful things than the UK are right now. But money isn’t everything, so let’s get off the economy train.

   So what real arguments are there for staying in the Union? Well not a lot.
   Britain is on coarse to be the most unequal nation in Europe, poverty levels are getting worse and we have a government that is indifferent from the interests of it’s citizens, indifferent to what a normal person wants in a goverment, only looking to further it’s own power, a prospect you from the US, can’t be too unfamiliar with. Contrary to what you wrote, the UK government are not dealing with the problems, they are in fact making all the problems that Britain faces even worse.
   Scots have no power to stop the UK government from taking part in what you call ‘unpopular wars’, good effort for trying to sugar coat the fact that we went to war on illegal (note: illegal, not ‘unpopular’) grounds and killed thousands of people.
   Scotland’s revenue goes to the UK treasury where they spend money that they could be spending on sorting poverty, crime, inequality- they spend that revenue on renewing nuclear weapons and other thingy’s that i’ll get to later. They don’t need nuclear weapons, they have no clearly defined threat for which to use the weapons. The majority of non-invaded countries in Europe that don’t harbor nukes are a testament to the need for nukes. So why do they renew the nuclear weapons? Vanity fare. The UK government wants to be seen as a superpower like it did in the days of the empire. It wants to be one of the big boys with big brother America.

   So what benefits will Independence bring? Independence will ensure that the nukes are gone, the rUK will most likely have no other place to harbor them after Scotland gets rid of them, thus Independence will have had a little hand in the very much needed nuclear disbarment. But there’s more my dears and dicks.
   It will ensure that Scotland will no longer have to partake in ‘unpopular’ wars.
   It will ensure that the revenue raised in Scotland will be spent on the problems in Scotland and will no longer be spent on nukes, Olympic stadiums, polishing up the UK parliament building and aircraft carriers with no planes on them.
   It will ensure that the much more competent Scottish government will fully handle Scottish affairs and represent Scottish interests on the national stage.

   But I hear to shouting once again ‘Well you’re just selfish idiot, you’re abandoning the rest of the UK to wallow in a Tory government under a Boris Johnston administration!’
   Not at all, I do believe that Scottish independence will help conquer the political stagnation of Britain once and for all. Right now Britain is stuck in a non-democracy where it has the pick between Tories that dismantle their society and Tories that call themselves Labour that dismantle their society. If independence will ensure one thing, it will ensure change, it will show people how in need of change Great Britain really is, because once the people of England and see Scotland moseying along with free prescriptions and education and a society free of Westminster corruption,while on their side the Tories have dismantled their education and NHS. I do believe there will be some sort of a political revolution in England, a yearn for party that actually represents the views of the people . Not only that, but right now England has no parliament to vote against Tory idiocy like Scotland and Wales sort of do at the moment, come independence England will either: build a devolved parliament, or, in the event that Wales leaves too, just use the UK parliament as it’s parliament.

   Above all it will fix a big problem that you seem to commend in this article, and that is the imperialistic culture of Britain, you said it yourself ‘a choice between being part of a country that shaped the world, or becoming a country shaped by the world.’ Obviously commending our empire that imposed British values on the world. This further adds to my point that unionists are stuck in the past. Note the past tenths there by the way ‘a country that shapED the world’. That would be that empire a hundred years ago, i assume? Still trying to hang on to the days in which we were a super power telling the world how it’s done. It’s the same reason, as i’ve said, why the UK government harbors nukes. Nostalgia and stagnation. The unionist position summed up nicely. It’s time to drag these Isles kicking and screaming into the 21st century, where it is not the might of a country’s army that get’s it’s influence across the world, but in the strength of it’s ideas.

   In conclusion the fact that you call a nations right to self governing as ‘a betrayal’ and ‘sickening’ shows me all I really need to know about your position. Perhaps you should move to the UK, my dear, to actually get a perspective on state of the problems that need to be fixed and not use your obviously very limited perspective on the issue to belittle a movement that will bring so much needed change to these Great British Isles

   So good job getting the end of this response.

5. 

   Peter A Bell

   August 31, 2012 at 8:29 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   Sentimental, romantic British nationalist jingoism. This sort of claptrap isn’t going to impress anyone other those those with any similarly woolly-minded approach to politics.

6. 

   Andy MacLean

   August 31, 2012 at 10:09 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   Former constituent parts of the USSR may question your argument that social diversity and cultural enrichment are best served by the lumping of nations together. The Irish, meanwhile, have never expressed regret at gaining their independence.

   A Scottish voice in the UN and Europe is a good thing, if you’re Scottish. The case for a nation being best governed by the people who live in it is just common sense, and misty eyed reflections on former Great British Feel Good Glory are no reason to forfeit your political independence.

   Scotland had “cultural development” before the union, by the way, and the treasury had “sound finances” in 1707 even if individuals in the government didn’t. It took being part of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to get lumbered with a share of a 1.5 trillion debt.

7. 

   Tris

   August 31, 2012 at 10:59 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   I don’t think, with respect, that anyone is suggesting a people’s republic.

   Just a relationship with other parts of the UK along the lines of Scandinavian relationships.

   No one wants to live in North Korea and there are no political parties, let alone major ones in Scotland that will promote this.

   Scops don’t want WMDs. Scots don’t benefit from being members of the security council. Scots might benefit from being members of the EU, if matters pertaining to Scotland (fishing, for example) were dealt with by the Scottish Fisheries Minister, instead of the English Fisheries minister. Likewise with farming.

   35 million people live in the south-east of London, around 10 million in one city. It is reasonable that economic policy for the Uk should be set by this massive centre of population.

   Unfortunately, as has been admitted by the governor of the Bank of England (not Britain, much less Great Britain, you will note), that unemployment in the North (that’s us) is a price well worth paying for keeping inflation under control.

   In short we don’t much matter.

   It’s the way we are always treated. if you watch teh BBC news, it’s all about England and international matters. Scotland rarely gets a mention. Laws that have nothing to do with us and analysed in detail, health, education, law and order…all English only matters…and we have to sit through it all. it’s like being foreigners in our own country.

   I am sick of it. Giving Scotland its independence will not mean that Britain will disappear. There will still be a Britain, Great of otherwise (the great refers to the fact that there are two Britains…one in France which is small, and one on the other side of the Channel which is Big, Grand or Great). It will mean that we can take our own decisions on whether our pensioners have enough to eat in long hard cold Scottish winters (unlike the much shorter and warmer winters of the south of England.)
   .

8. 

   Don McC

   August 31, 2012 at 11:08 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   I’m sorry, but you have to question the credibility of someone making the assertion that Scotland has a historic obligation to remain in an unequal union when that someone is a citizen of a country that rejected that union many years ago.

   As to your other assertions such as Scotland’s too wee, too poor, too stupid to be a viable nation. Not even pro union politicians deny that Scotland could stand on its own feet. Scotland is an energy rich country. I’m sure its people could turn a coin or two from all that energy.

   The peoples of Scotland have different priorities from those in the rest of the UK. You claim it’s immature and childish to try to leave but we will never bring the rest of the UK round to our way of thinking. We’ve tried for years and it’s got us nowhere. Sticking with it and doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result is the very definition of insanity. I’d rather be considered childish than insane.

   The UK has run it’s course. Breaking up the Union amicably is now the mature thing to do and would benefit the people’s on both sides of the border. You may not see the benefit in doing so but then you’re not born ‘n bred here and don’t understand the nuances of what indepence would mean to ordinary people here. It’s not something you can get from a book or from t.v.

9. 

   morag

   August 31, 2012 at 11:28 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   for Pearl
   It’s awfy kind o’ ye tae be so concerned aboot us Scots, but dinnae worry hen, we’ll be ok.

   Scotland has bin takin’ aboot Independence for quite a few years noo and we’re pretty clear aboot the pertinent points.

   A ken it’s no easy for youse Americans tae be worrying aboot poor wee Scotland and our probable return to being an Independent country again, efter aw, yees hiv a fair bit o’ trouble yourselves I’ve heard.

   But keep yer een open ‘cos we will be back on the world stage in jist a couple o’ years, efter aw
   We couldnae dae any worse, could we?

10. 

    WarriorBadger

    August 31, 2012 at 11:49 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Oh my god. I don’t think I have ever read such unadulterated, keenly misinformed drivel in my life.

    Listen very clearly. I am a Scot. If you knew *anything* – anything whatsoever – about Scotland’s ‘sense of community and common purpose’ you would quickly realise that London’s Westminster pro-Nuclear, pro-Cuts, pro-Privatisation agenda is so alien to our sense of Community as to beggar belief.

    Politically Scotland has more in common with many Continental / Scandinavian nations than it does successive Blue or Red Tory Govts. in London. Hence through DEMOCRACY the people overwhelmingly voted in a devolved Parliament and through DEMOCRACY we overwhelmingly voted in an inclusive, pro-immigration, idealistic, pacifist, green Civic Nationalist Party.

    I truly feel for you, if you believe that we should just take things like ‘war, budget cuts, and nuclear waste ‘ on the chin for Westminster – but hey, believe or not, as a small nation we’ve every right – like many, many others – to turn around and say ‘No’ we do not want to decimate our regiments whilst London sends them to die in foreign wars, ‘No’ we do not want to invest in unsafe and entirely necessaries Nuclear power stations in Scotland, when our Nation simply does not require them and NO we do not want to spend precious BILLIONS on real weapons of mass destruction when the money could be used elsewhere.

    For a nation of 5.5 million this is political common sense. Those reasons in and of themselves constitute the tip of the Iceberg.

    You have a crushing lack of grasp on what’s going on in Scotland at the moment. Frankly, when you cite ‘travel convenience’ as a benefit of staying in the Union and draw parallels between the American Civil War and Scotland’s drive for Political Independence, well, you best try talking to some Scottish Nationalists and the hundreds of thousands who voted in a majority SNP Government to protect us from the politically alien cretins in London.

    If you want to test your distant adolescent theories why not bullet your questions/assumptions and post them in a Nationalist forum? Unlike the rabid reiterations of many a Unionist blog, we can, I can assure you, answer each and every question you have clearly, coolly, and with evidence.

11. 

    Stevie

    September 1, 2012 at 12:24 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    “”"”"”"”"”"”"”However, I’m afraid the UK is currently plagued with those who would prefer to disown their heritage and go in search of a manufactured alternative. To exchange flawed wood for smooth-looking plastic seems to be their motto. It is the wail of spoiled children in search of a new toy, and the cry of adolescent rebels in search of a worthwhile cause. “”"”"”"”"”"”"”

    Uninformed, historically invented, misinterpreted blinkered tosh.

    The identity of ‘British’ is a manufactured construct – a product of a union of the crowns after a dissolution of the Scottish parliament against the will of the Scots. Great Britain is a deeply divided society both racially and socially and by ‘Great Britain, you mean England since the 5 milllion population of Scotland makes up only 8.4% of the UK population and cannot truly be counte in that reality. Scotland itself however, has an ugly undercurrent of religious sectarian bigotry that only survived because of the union of the crowns.

    The Scots demonstrated violently against the union of parliaments 300 years ago and to this day 1/3rd of the population desire independence at any cost. As it happens, the UK government is broke, flat broke and is imposing huge spending cuts on services hurting the disabled and weakest in society. “Great Britain’ was a huge miltary empire built on the invasion and conquering of peoples. Millions died and slavery flourished in this empire building. The empire crumbled post WWII as these countries kicked out the Brits following the second world war and not single one of those countries has asked to be goverrned by the Brits again.

    British nationalism is wooden alright but Europe’s oldest nation — Scotland is older wood still and that country called Scotland has a right to choose its destiny as an independent nation should it so desire. It is entirely evident to the Scots that the wandering, nostalgic British nationalism present in your blog is the plastic — without foundation in reality and without any sense of the politics of the UK, or of Scotland.

    Scottish politics opposes the cold business steel of the UK sword and instead embraces a caring desire to look after the weakest in society and to improve the lives and economy of the Scots.

    Congratulations for having produced the most out of touch Brit nat blog I’ve ever read.

12. 

    Jill

    September 1, 2012 at 2:44 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    I’m from Scotland. I’ve been watching this debate from the sidelines for months now, and this is the first time I’ve truly felt the need to comment (not because it wasn’t necessary before, but because someone else had already articulated my thoughts better than I felt I could).

    This piece of writing is a personal opinion, which I respect, however, I cannot disagree more with the sentiments, and I feel obliged to give my point of view as an alternative.

    The author says, “I deeply admire her historical strivings towards individual liberty, the supremacy of law, political stability, and national unity.” This is said in relation to the United Kingdom. Can the author not admire these feelings within Scotland? They’re certainly present on a Scottish level. We’re aspiring to political stability and national unity by the very act of a referendum, to allow us the freedom to choose a government we want, that represents our people. This is not possible as part of the UK. Individual liberty and supremacy of law need not even be brought up. I could argue that Westminster do not respect either of these, but that’s for a different topic.

    The author states, “the UK is currently plagued with those who would prefer to disown their heritage and go in search of a manufactured alternative.” Firstly, I would like to ask the author, as an American, if that’s how she/he feels about those who fought for American independence? Were those Americans who were seeking independence disowning their heritage in search of a manufactured alternative?

    Secondly, Scotland has a great deal of heritage, much of it before the Union began, so seeking independence has nothing to do with disowning heritage, more with reclaiming it. And much of our heritage has been disowned BECAUSE of the Union.

    As for a manufactured alternative, we are looking for ANY alternative. Manufactured means thought out and planned for, so all the better. If we can manufacture our future, then that is fantastic for all of us. If we can get together, hope and try, that’s good enough for me.

    Your third paragraph, I can’t disagree with in its entirety. This is the crux of the argument given by those who want to remain in the Union. It’s an entirely emotional argument about shared history and past benefits, none of which are relevant today. Scotland’s benefits from the Union “including sound finances, military strength, governmental stability, travel convenience, and cultural development”, are entirely obtainable to an independent Scotland, and there’s nothing to suggest otherwise.

    The author suggest an anti-imperialist agenda in the move for independence – “this attitude purports that Scotland is, in fact, a colony from the old Empire, chafing beneath its chains and yearning for self-government, rather than a free member of a democratic, constitutionally sound union”. To the majority of Scots I suspect this does not have any bearing on their desire for independence. It’s not about years gone by, or imperialism, it’s a modern-day scenario – Scotland ruled by a party, not necessarily a nation, that does not represent them. And the hindsight, and foresight, that this will likely never change. For that reason, the Union is neither democratic or sound. What Scotland votes has no bearing on the outcome of elections, as we have such a small minority in comparison with the rest of the UK. We consistently vote differently from the rest of the UK, yet we get the government voted by the majority in the densely populated areas in the South East of England. We need and want different things from them.

    “Arguments have been put forward by the Scottish Nationalists indicating that independence will be a type of “escape” from fighting in unpopular wars, dealing with governmental cut-backs, and having nuclear waste dumped on the land; furthermore they claim that Scotland will grow more prosperous by gaining further access to oil reserves in the North Sea.” Absolutely. These are some of the strongest arguments for independence. The majority of Scots didn’t want to be involved in illegal wars, or wars of any kind. The majority of Scots want to avoid governmental cut-backs. The majority of Scots don’t want nuclear waste, or nuclear weapons, on their land. The majority of Scots want the benefits of North Sea oil reserves. We could of had, and could have, all these things with independence, but as part of the UK we’ve had no choice. The rest of your fourth paragraph belittles these sentiments with talk of David and Goliath and celebrity. These are the serious issues, these ar

13. 

    Jill

    September 1, 2012 at 2:44 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    I’m from Scotland. I’ve been watching this debate from the sidelines for months now, and this is the first time I’ve truly felt the need to comment (not because it wasn’t necessary before, but because someone else had already articulated my thoughts better than I felt I could).

    This piece of writing is a personal opinion, which I respect, however, I cannot disagree more with the sentiments, and I feel obliged to give my point of view as an alternative.

    The author says, “I deeply admire her historical strivings towards individual liberty, the supremacy of law, political stability, and national unity.” This is said in relation to the United Kingdom. Can the author not admire these feelings within Scotland? They’re certainly present on a Scottish level. We’re aspiring to political stability and national unity by the very act of a referendum, to allow us the freedom to choose a government we want, that represents our people. This is not possible as part of the UK. Individual liberty and supremacy of law need not even be brought up. I could argue that Westminster do not respect either of these, but that’s for a different topic.

    The author states, “the UK is currently plagued with those who would prefer to disown their heritage and go in search of a manufactured alternative.” Firstly, I would like to ask the author, as an American, if that’s how she/he feels about those who fought for American independence? Were those Americans who were seeking independence disowning their heritage in search of a manufactured alternative?

    Secondly, Scotland has a great deal of heritage, much of it before the Union began, so seeking independence has nothing to do with disowning heritage, more with reclaiming it. And much of our heritage has been disowned BECAUSE of the Union.

    As for a manufactured alternative, we are looking for ANY alternative. Manufactured means thought out and planned for, so all the better. If we can manufacture our future, then that is fantastic for all of us. If we can get together, hope and try, that’s good enough for me.

    Your third paragraph, I can’t disagree with in its entirety. This is the crux of the argument given by those who want to remain in the Union. It’s an entirely emotional argument about shared history and past benefits, none of which are relevant today. Scotland’s benefits from the Union “including sound finances, military strength, governmental stability, travel convenience, and cultural development”, are entirely obtainable to an independent Scotland, and there’s nothing to suggest otherwise.

    The author suggest an anti-imperialist agenda in the move for independence – “this attitude purports that Scotland is, in fact, a colony from the old Empire, chafing beneath its chains and yearning for self-government, rather than a free member of a democratic, constitutionally sound union”. To the majority of Scots I suspect this does not have any bearing on their desire for independence. It’s not about years gone by, or imperialism, it’s a modern-day scenario – Scotland ruled by a party, not necessarily a nation, that does not represent them. And the hindsight, and foresight, that this will likely never change. For that reason, the Union is neither democratic or sound. What Scotland votes has no bearing on the outcome of elections, as we have such a small minority in comparison with the rest of the UK. We consistently vote differently from the rest of the UK, yet we get the government voted by the majority in the densely populated areas in the South East of England. We need and want different things from them.

    “Arguments have been put forward by the Scottish Nationalists indicating that independence will be a type of “escape” from fighting in unpopular wars, dealing with governmental cut-backs, and having nuclear waste dumped on the land; furthermore they claim that Scotland will grow more prosperous by gaining further access to oil reserves in the North Sea.” Absolutely. These are some of the strongest arguments for independence. The majority of Scots didn’t want to be involved in illegal wars, or wars of any kind. The majority of Scots want to avoid governmental cut-backs. The majority of Scots don’t want nuclear waste, or nuclear weapons, on their land. The majority of Scots want the benefits of North Sea oil reserves. We could of had, and could have, all these things with independence, but as part of the UK we’ve had no choice. The rest of your fourth paragraph belittles these sentiments with talk of David and Goliath and celebrity. These are the serious issues, these ar

14. 

    Jill

    September 1, 2012 at 3:20 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    e not to be brushed aside.

    “the problems of modern society involving wars, budget cuts, and nuclear waste are being dealt with UK wide.” But would the Scottish people have become involved with these wars? Would we have allowed these banking crises/budget cuts? Would we have allowed nuclear waste and weapons on our shores? No, we would not have. Scottish people resoundingly argued against recent wars, resoundingly detested nuclear weaponry. Had we been in control of banking we almost certainly would have different regulations, and if not, we would have assets to strengthen our position. To call us “not only immature, but also shockingly self-interested” is offensive. Our interests are different, to that end we’re self-interested. It couldn’t be a more mature point of view, given the facts.

    “The claim that Scotland will have better access to North Sea oil is questionable at best.” No, it’s not. Scotland has vast reserves in it’s waters compared to England and the rest of the UK. Clearly, should Scotland gain independence, those reserves will remain Scotland’s, and therefore Scotland will gain from the entire of her North Sea reserves, as opposed to income going to Westminster, as at present.

    In the second-last paragraph the author states, “Trying to apply modern standards to past events while at the same ignoring whole chunks of meaningful history in order to forward an agenda is despicable”, closely followed in the final paragraph with, “it is a choice between being part of a country that shaped the world, or becoming a country shaped by the world.” A stunning contradiction.

    Then continues a rant about betrayal, and ancestors, and betrayal. From a citizen of the USA who celebrates how lucky they are to have retained their Union. Which might never have existed had they not fought for their independence.

    It is not about history, it is not about the lessons of the USA, it is not about any country, other than Scotland, and the Scottish people. We are not represented. We have our own ambitions.

15. 

    Gordon Kirk

    September 1, 2012 at 6:06 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Presumably therefore the USA will rejoin the UK as it was clearly a huge mistake to leave this state of perfection. I think not.

    Why should Scotland, a country with its own legal, educational and church institutions – all based on different principles and practices from the rest of the UK, not resume the independence of action that it had for most of its existence and which for the USA has allowed the building of a great nation.

16. 

    Gordon

    September 1, 2012 at 7:46 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    I assume the author of this piece has simply forgotten to add how she tirelessly campaigns for the restoration of Great British rule over America?

    Surely that must be her default position, given if it is not and she champions the independence of the US, then we can simply file her diatribe under “H” for Hypocrisy.

17. 

    Union2012

    September 1, 2012 at 8:18 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    OK, I am one of the administrators of this site, so firstly thank you for the comments above.

    As you’ve no doubt, realised we operate a comment moderation policy- we are not professional journalists working on this 24/7 but please be patient, your comments will be posted as soon as any of us get a spare moment.

    Comment moderation is to limit the amount of personal abuse and pointless comments (eg “This is a load of crap”)- on this thread there are two comments which I have not posted for that reason, so if you are thinking of posting anything along those lines, please don’t as you will only be wasting your time.

18. 

    Euan Clement

    September 1, 2012 at 9:22 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    I take it you will be wanting the U.S.A to rejoin the great british empire, seeing as how you selfishly broke away in 1775 to avoid paying your share of the taxes?

19. 

    WyndySascha

    September 1, 2012 at 11:18 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Another wonderfully written piece from Pearl of Tyburn – check out her blog for more of them!

    I’m a Briton, a unionist, and have both English and Scottish parentage; I’d like to express my opinion.

    An appeal to continued union based on the laudable elements of the past is certainly difficult, I know. But it’s surely no more or less reasonable than the idea that breaking the union will bring fixes for Scotland’s problems in the future? I’m unconvinced by the argument that Scotland is somehow tyrannized by Westminster. That the devolution process continues apace – that Scotland’s place in the Union is being periodically redefined – is, by that very fact, evidence that Scotland is not being abused, and is strong enough to claim the benefits of Union.

    I greatly love my country, and it’s difficult not to romanticize its past. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Scotland has suffered at the hands of her more powerful neighbours, and of the British state itself, in the past (and one doesn’t have to go back to the Eighteenth Century… the Conservative governments of the Eighties and Nineties are a case in point). But – as many nationalists have pointed out in the comments – the past isn’t always the origin of tram lines to the future.

    Scotland has suffered some, but gained immeasurably from Union. The original union itself, in 1706/7, was beneficial to both England and Scotland: the former gaining a measure of security within the British Isles from continental interference; the latter was able to forestall bankruptcy after the Darien Scheme’s failure. Darien was designed to grant Scotland access to world markets, and that’s something the Union aids in to this day.

    Within the structures of the Union, Scots have participated actively and still do all out-of-proportion to Scotland’s smaller population, which is a testament to the greatness of the Scottish people. I’m not just speaking as a Scottish Briton who thinks there are benefits to being in the Union – participation in the highest levels of world affairs and complete access to one of the world’s largest trading economies being among those – I’m also speaking as an English Briton who doesn’t want to lose having Scots in my country!

    Rather than break the Union, surely it’s better to acknowledge its fundamental utility? As a state, it provides for the best interests of Scots and all the others… or, at least, it has in the past and so probably can in the future. If we also acknowledge its flaws and failures, we can work on fixing those. Scotland can keep the benefits of Union, and assist in minimizing the costs. Devolution is a critical part of that… but independence would throw out all the potential good.

    1. 

       Ross

       September 1, 2012 at 1:42 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

       WyndySascha

       Your appeal to the past is not a strong enough argument to want to keep the union going.

       You said: “But it’s surely no more or less reasonable than the idea that breaking the union will bring fixes for Scotland’s problems in the future?”

       Scotland would benefit greatly from leaving the union, not just financially, like has already been stated, but culturally too. The feeling of knowing that Scotland is not just a region trying to be a wee pretendy country would be a great awakening for the people of Scotland. Going on Google maps and seeing Scotland actually being marked as ‘Scotland’. I think that would give a huge cultural confidence to Scotland.

       Someone else on here brought up a great point and that is Scotland does not have it’s own devolved news channel, or even devolved TV channel for that matter, so we are constantly bombarded with news on England, English laws, English troubles from an English newscaster. Now the majority of Scots are not xenophobic, but that has to chip away at the confidence of a nation when another country is doing the news, I think it contributes a lot to his notion that Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid to be it’s own country, as in we ‘need’ to be in the UK for our news and for our tv culture since we have non, it has made us dependent culturally on England.

       You said: “I’m unconvinced by the argument that Scotland is somehow tyrannized by Westminster.”

       Read my comment up top, i explained that Westminster is a government out of touch with every person in Britain, it matters not who you vote for, Labour, Tory, nothing will change. Ever since Blair each PM has done nothing but make everything in this country worse despite what party they represented.They care not for the interests of the people, only the interests of their careers. Scottish Independence will start a political change in.

       You said: “As a state, it provides for the best interests of Scots and all the others… or, at least, it has in the past and so probably can in the future.”

       And this just reinforces my point about Unionists being stuck in the past. ‘Well it worked in the past, must work in the future too’. No, reality completely contradicts that notion. Look around, England has no parliament to represent it, Scotland is being held back by a party they didn’t vote for. Inconsistency, inequality, nostalgia, stagnation. This is what defines Britain as a whole, not looking towards the future, but looking to the past, where we used the bayonet to enforce our laws on others, so much so that the UK government are too busy building Olympic stadiums to reminisce about the past to get that British identity back, and renewing nuclear weapons that they’ll never fire in order to look like a superpower in the eyes of the world, like in the days of the empire, all while poverty and inequality run rampant.

       An independent Scotland will look to towards the future. Nuclear disarming, preparing for climate change, building a more equal society, that is what will define the new Scotland and inspire other countries to follow it’s lead.

    2. 

       Peter A Bell

       September 1, 2012 at 1:57 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

       ” I’m unconvinced by the argument that Scotland is somehow tyrannized by Westminster.”

       Where di you ever see such an argument from any serious independence campaigner? And where did you ever see any claim that independence was some kind of miracle fix for all Scotland’s problems? That’s a wee army of straw men you’re marching with there.

       What I seek for Scotland is no more than that status and those powers which other nations assume to be theirs by right. This is hardly a revolutionary concept. So it’s difficult to understand why so many British nationalists have such difficulty getting their heads around it.

    3. 

       R.G. Bargie

       September 1, 2012 at 7:30 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

       None of that makes an iota of rational sense. You’re right – Scotland HAS suffered at the hands of Tory governments it consistently rejects at the ballot box, and as long as it remains in the Union it always will. The benefits of the past, if they existed, are history. We need to move forward, and by far the easiest and most effective way to do that is to cut ourselves loose of the Tories hauling the whole of the UK into the abyss.

       It’ll be sad to abandon England to its fate, but then England has brought its fate on itself by voting for the Tories, and forcing Labour to turn *into* Tories so that there’s no alternative. We’ve tried and tried for decades. It’s time to give up and save ourselves before it’s too late.

    4. 

       Arbroath 1320

       September 2, 2012 at 2:10 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

       I’d re check your history Wyndysascha.

       The Darien project DID NOT bankrupt Scotland. At the time of Darien Scotland was showing an annual GROWTH of around 2.5%. The WHOLE Darien projoct was NOT financed by the Scottish banks, or any other bank, it was WHOLLY financed by the people, individuals, of Scotland! If my memory serves me correctly it was in fact England that was running a deficit.

       You say:
       “Darien was designed to grant Scotland access to world markets, and that’s something the Union aids in to this day.”

       This is true up to a point, it was a scheme that would allow Scotland acces to world markets, mainly the far east. However, the English government eager that Scotland should NOT gain access to these markets persuaded the Spanish to help them in blockading the Scots in Panama ultimately leading to the failure of the project. Therefore the project did NOT fail on its own, it failed because the ENGLISH government was adamant that Scotland should NOT be allowed onto the World stage!

       As far as the union itself is concerned that was only achieved by the lies, bribery and corruption, of a FEW lairds who signed the Treaty of Union. As most folks know this event led to the famous Rabbie Burns quote of “a parcel o’ rogues!” Don’t forget that there was also the little matter of as well the immenent threat of Invasion by the English army. SEVEN English regiments of foot soldiers and Dragoons were billeted along the Scots/English border as well as in Northern Ireland. Four regiments were on the Scots/English border the remaining three were in Northern Ireland.

       This was not a popular event, evidenced by the fact that the Treaty was NOT signed, openly,in the Scottish parliament but in secret in a dingy back room which can still be seen today, it’s a Ladies Toilet in an Edinburgh pub! Further more, AFTER the signing of the treaty there were riots right across the country over the next TWO years. In fact one of the first riots took place in Dumfries where there were regular “burnings of the treaty.”

       I see that you also make the following claim:

       ” I’m not just speaking as a Scottish Briton who thinks there are benefits to being in the Union – participation in the highest levels of world affairs and complete access to one of the world’s largest trading economies being among those –”

       Are these the ONLY reasons you have as to why Scotland should remain in the union?

       Why does Scotland NEED to be in the disfunctional union to participate in the highest level of world affairs?

       Why does Scotland need to be part of the fast failing economic basket case that is the union to have access to one of the world’s largest trading economies?

       What are you saying?
       “Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid” to achieve these things on her own?

       From what EVERY one in Scotland has witnessed over the last five years, our current Scottish government is rather good at balancing a budget, the same CAN NOT bre said of Westminster. From the latest financial outlooks the U.K. is heading towards building up excessive amount of Billions of £’s in debt that would swamp most countries. Why would Scotland want to be part of that?

       There is also news filtering out of Westminster that there is to ANOTHER £10 BILLION cut to the Scottish “grant” from Westminster. WHY should we be in SURPLUS TO westminster but get less and less “pocket money” FROM westminster each year?

       Surely by ANY stretch of the imagination an INDEPENDENT Scotland WILL do so much better on its own.

20. 

    oneill

    September 1, 2012 at 11:58 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    When I have occasionally spoken to interested Irish Americans about our situation in Northern Ireland, how they view the situation often differs to my own. If a factual error has been made, then that is easy enough to point out and it’s up to them whether they accept it or not. However, most of the time differences are differences in opinion, subjective differences in how history and the present is interpretated.
    The fact that many in irish America think the way they do is more often or not because “we” as NI Unionists have not presented our case well enough. Or the picture we indirectly present of ourselves is a negative one.

    Pearl of Tyburn has an obvious love of the United Kingdom but she, it seems, is also an avid follower of the present constitutional debate. You won’t change that subjective love of the UK but when you read her piece you must also surely realise that there must be weaknesses in the manner of how you collectively are presenting your case outside the UK?

21. 

    Alba

    September 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    You just don’t get it. The Union wasn’t a partnership in it’s inception, decided ‘by the people, for the people’. Neither does it bear *any* kind of resemblance to a ‘partnership of equals’ today.

    And – between those points – there is tangible and indisputable evidence to tangibly show that it is little less than *laughable* to suggest said partnership, even in modern times, strives to represent the people of Scotland [including the signing of the Scottish Covenant in the 50's which was simply ignored by Westminster, despite being the express wish of the people!]

    The fudge of the 70′s referendum?? The cover-up associated with our oil – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8amY2xHjCs

    The Union is, at it’s most basic level, is about a small, politically left, resource rich, land rich, water rich nation which shares a border with a right-leaning, large, resource poor nation who are *insisting* on Britishness as an ‘Identity’ as opposed to a Geographical association – which is utter hogwash.

    What always surprises me is that Unionist comments invariably ignore the fact that this is a political movement. Scotland *is not* going to float away into the Sea. The ties that bind the nations on the British Isles are not going to dissolve, as shamefully suggested by Unionist politicians who have nothing to offer ‘the debate’ whatsoever. Worse, Gordon Brown – and he should be ashamed of this – likened the civic nationalist movement in Scotland to one that lead to the Balkanisation of the Island. Shame shame shame.

    And – yet again – I see no substance AT ALL in the Unionist argument. What is it you guy are bringing to the table exactly, other than hollow, meaningless sound bites? Can you actual answer nationalist assertions, evidence in hand? Apparently not. The Campaign thus far insist that we are ‘Better Together’ without offering one shred of common sense example as to why that is the case.

    Why? Because there *is no* good argument to stay in the Union.

    Your points in turn, themselves the same tired old chestnuts Nationalists have been answering for years.

    Darien:

    Darien: The Darien scheme bankrupted Scotland and we were saved by the Union.

    Scotland wasn’t bankrupt in 1707. But even if it was, so what? Norway was a basket case in 1707, Finland was a poverty stricken remote forgotten corner of Sweden, and Switzerland was a collection of remote mountain valleys with an economy based on cheese and yodelling. The state of the Scottish economy over 300 years ago isn’t relevant to our economic potential in the 21st century. Bringing up Darien just goes to show that the anti-independence argument is stuck in the 18th century.

    Even if this Unionist claim were true, are we supposed to base our decision on the future of our country because of a good turn done to us over 300 years ago? We’ve repaid that debt many times over. But the truth is that Scotland was not bankrupt in 1707, we did not need England to bail us out. They didn’t bail us out, Westminster just bribed some lords, the ‘parcel o rogues’ Burns wrote about.

    Scotland in 1707 was doing quite well for itself. According to the historian Michael Lynch, the Scottish economy was growing at 2.5% annually – a rather more impressive figure than we’ve managed these past few years under Westminster. Scotland, like other countries in Western Europe at the time, was beginning to develop a middle class and an urban working class. The towns and burghs of Scotland were cash rich, and were beginning to agitate for greater political power. This went down as well with aristos of Scotland and England as a Craig Whyte and Neil Lennon karaoke double act would go down at Gers fans night out.

    The Darien colony was largely bankrolled by Lowland lords. However the idea that Scotland might embark on some colonialist adventurism off its own bat was anathema to Westminster, which believed it had a monopoly on imperialist ambitions. England sided with Spain and blocked Scottish access to all English colonies, as a result the Darien scheme was doomed even before it even got started.

    Failure of Darien left the Lowland Lords in financial strife, and they were threatening to default on the bills they owed to their mainly English creditors. With war looming between England and France, Westminster was determined to secure its northern border. The infamous ‘English gold’ was sent north. The money paid by the English Parliament was in the form of bribes to private individuals to vote for Union, it was not a payment to bail out the Scottish national exchequer.

    History: We have 300 years’ of history in the Union, we shouldn’t throw that away.

    Just how do you throw away history? Put David Starkey in the bin? That idea does have a certain appeal. But history, there’s a clue in the name, is already in the past. The Union will remain a part of Scotland’s history.

    Scotland will continue to make history with England after Scottish independence, but we’ll be making history as equals, and not as a semi-forgotten outpost of the Westminster Parliament. Independence is about the future, not the past.

    Positive case for the Union: The anti-independence parties will make a positive case for Scotland remaining within the Union.

    If the anti-independence parties had spent a fraction of the time and energy finding a positive case for the Union as they have telling us scare stories about how Scots would all die of the plague the day after independence, we’d probably not be having this debate now. But in reality a positive case for the Union is the biggest myth of all. There’s more evidence for the existence of monsters in lochs than there is for the existence of the positive case for the Union. Photies of nuclear submarines in the Firth of Clyde count as evidence for monsters, in case you were wondering.

    All the anti-independence parties have promised that they will make a “positive case” for Scotland remaining under Westminster government. It’s always that they’re “going to” make a positive case for the Union, or that they’re “about to”, or “watch this space it’s coming”, or “those nats better watch out because we’ll be doing it really really soon, honest”. But they never seem to get round to it. They’re too busy making up scare stories to find the time.

    The closest we’ve come so far was when Davie Cameron attempted to give what he believed to be a positive case for the Union while on a trip to Embra in February 2012. But as is well known north of the Border, Davie struggles with the Scottish vernacular. When yer average Scottish punter says “positive case for the Union”, what is meant is that Westminster politicians spell out in detail exactly how Scotland benefits from being ruled from the banks of the Thames by a Parliament dominated by Tory MPs.

    But what Davie thought the phrase meant was spelling out how Westminster benefits from having control of all of Scotland’s resources and economy. But we all know that already, and it’s because we can see how Westminster benefits at our expense that we want to know what Scotland gets out the deal. Tory Prime Ministers are incapable of articulating that, because there is no positive spin that can be put on the situation.

    What is occasionally presented as a positive case for the Union falls into one of three categories: 1. The irrelevant 2. The outright falsehood, and 3. The delusional.

    1. Irrelevant: There are legions of examples, like waffle about fighting Hitler together. We didn’t fight Hitler in order to keep George Foulkes and Michael Forsyth in well paid jobs where they can influence legislation despite no one voting for them. Also irrelevant are claims about family and cultural ties – we have those with Ireland too – Irish independence didn’t break them. We don’t need Westminster to tell us who our nearest and dearest are. And Irish people still speak English.

    2. The outright falsehood: There are legions of these too. Subsidy junkie myths, alarmist scaremongering about defence, challenging those is what this A-Z is all about.

    3. The delusional: Anything uttered by Michael Forsyth.

    There’s no sign of a substantive positive case for the Union coming along any time soon, nor indeed, ever coming along at all. Let’s be honest here, if the positive case existed, we’d all know all about it by now. BBC Scotland, the Scotsman et al. would have been sure to mention it, repeatedly. It would in fact be given about as much publicity as the London Olympics.

    The silence speaks volumes.

    International influence: The Union allows Scotland to punch above her weight internationally.

    This myth gets trotted out as often as often as mentions of the London Olympics on the BBC. In the anti-independence parties’ private universe, Scotland is punching so high above her weight that the country has shot off into space and is currently orbiting around Westminster’s Uranus. Back on planet Earth, the Union makes Scotland absent from the international scene.

    No one ever argued that being a member of the Soviet Union allowed Estonia to punch above its weight internationally. During the Cold War, the usual colloquial term for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was “Russia”. Equally, in furren pairts the colloquial name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is “England”. The usual term in German for Scot literally translates as “I think you’ll find you’re really English”.

    Scotland currently has zero international influence. Westminster has international influence. Westminster does not represent Scottish interests – it represents Westminster interests. The only way Scotland will have any international influence at all is for us to take up our own party invites to Norway and Finland’s cheese and home-distilled-rocket-fuel parties, instead of allowing Westminster to represent us.

    There you have it. I *countered* some of the rhetoric. And now I expect you to show some evidence why we’re better off NOT being able to decide whether Scots die in foreign wars, NOT being able to reap our our marine taxation and oil [and whisky, and land estate], NOT being able to drop-kick disgusting weapons of mass destruction from our OWN shores, even though the nation is opposed to such weapons, and that across political parties.

22. 

    Arbroath 1320

    September 1, 2012 at 12:30 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    So here we have the “GREAT WHITE HISTORIAN” who is going to SAVE Scotland from a fate worse than death!

    Jeez. Here’s a few facts for you hen.

    1) BEFORE 1707, you remember that date don’t you, Scotland, the country, was NOT in debt
    2) In order to pass the Treaty of Union, the few people who signed the Treaty,Scottish Lairds were Bribed,Conned,carried out Fraud and Lied. Oh don’t forget the threat of INVASION from ENGLAND!
    3) The Treaty was signed NOT in the Scottish Parliament but in a dank wee cubby room AWAY from parliament. In fact, for your information this dank wee cubby room STILL exists to this day, as a Ladies toilet in one of Edinburgh’s pubs!
    4) After the Treay was signed there followed TWO years of protests from the MAJORITY of people in Scotland.
    5) As a wee pointer to you hen, Scotland’s heritage goes ALL the way to around 100 A.D. when the first Scottish leader, Calgacus, kicked some serious ROMAN ass! From that day till 1706 we were an INDEPENDENT nation!

    Remind me again lass, how far back does your AMERICAN heritage go?

    O.K. hen you say this in your piece:
    “The sense of community and common purpose that should be the backbone of all nations seems to have been fractured in their minds, and they have instead adopted a narrow vision of “home rule” patriotism to make up for it.”

    Perhaps you could explain to all of us WHY in 1775 there was a wee diity war of Independence in what is now America? Surely by your own words above YOUR nation’s fathers were “fractured in their own minds.” Surely by your admission above of “home rule” your country’s founding fathers MUST have adopted a narrow vision of “home rule” patriotism!

    By the way hen, if it wasn’t for an INDEPENDENT Scotland your AMERICAN constitution would be, I reckon, radically different, after all it is a recognised fact that the DECLARATION of ARBROATH, signed in Arbroath Abbey on 6th April 1320, played a significant part in the creation of YOUR Constitution. If you don’t believe me just ask one of your former Presidents, George W. Bush!

    The people of Scotland are sick to the back teeth of being told by the “rich and famous” of the S.E. of England how we should run our lives. Despite unionist claims to the contrary we are NOT “Too wee, Too poor nor are we Too Stupid!” Further more, we the people of Scotland will NEVER go along with Westminster’s desire of entering into ILLEGAL wars ever again and having WMD’s sat 30 miles from our largest city. We never asked for these inhumane WMD’s, we don’t want these indescriminate WMD’s, we will NEVER desire these faceless killer missiles. So please explain to us all WHY should we have them in Scotland? Why should Scotland be part of a MINORITY of countries in the world? We would rather join the MAJORITY, the majority of countries in the world WITHOUT WMD’s.

    Our current fight for Independence is to REGAIN our PRIDE and NATIONAL IDENTITY that has been lost to us for over 300 years. We are a proud people. We WILL be Independent as a result of the referendum in 2014.

    You have a choice to make hen. You either CONTINUE to bury your head in the sand ostrich style or you waken up to the reality of the situation that Scotland WILL become the next INDEPENDENT member of the U.N.

23. 

    Eric Taylor

    September 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    First of all, after reading your article, i am very upset and rather offended that you have these views of Scotland and Scottish Independence. For someone to make such statements about my country, for which i believe, has never even been to Scotland is, quite frankly, absurd. No matter how much research someone does into Scotland, its culture and its heritage, no one can fully understand a great country like Scotland, her heritage and her culture without first visiting it and being awash with it.

    Secondly, your article has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese and is very sketchy at best. I am now going to pull your article apart thread by thread, until it is thread-bare, much like the wall hanging carpets in the Castle Of Mey.

    You say that you admire the United Kingdom’s individual liberty, supremecy of law and political stability. This is laughable at best. Where are you getting your facts from ? The law is a joke is this country. Theres rapists and murders in this country, of which the majority are immigrants and all they get is a few years in prison. Political stability!!! Are you having a laugh ? Political stability!! Are you having a laugh ? The coalition government which is in power now, has been the worst one to date. Tax hikes for the poor and tax cuts for the rich. Aye, just screw the wee guys again. Thats political stability for you. Prime Minister David Cameron has just spent £14,000 of tax payers money on a trip to a vineyard. What bloody good is that going to do to the United Kingdoms economic shit hole ? Maybe he thinks, that because hes doing such a shit job, everyone in the United Kingdom should drink and forget their woes. Wouldn’t be a bad thing.

    Your next point goes on to say that i want to disown my heritage and exchange flawed wood for smooth new plastic. How dare you – and this is the part of your article that offended me the most. You say that you have a great passion for the United Kingdom and that you have done all this great and wonderful research into our heritage and culture. Well, bugger me sideways. Have you never heard of Scottish heritage ? I would never give up my heritage. I follow my Scottish culture and heritage.

    Your next part goes on to say, “The entire platform of the Scottish Independence Referendum rests on the presumption that the British identity is either non-existent in Scotland”. Well, this is just another load of rubbish isn’t it, considering that after the referendum, people will still be known as British considering that we all still live in the “British Isles” dear. Take a look at a map, you might learn something. I really don’t think you have thought our your article very well and think you need to do a bit more research because whatever your looking at and whoever you have spoke to, has not done you any favours. You have just offended about 90% of the Scottish population. Just take a look at the comments already on your page. Your next part says that we owe the United Kingdom respect for our making and successful union. Rubbish! How can a union of countries be successful if there is only one country that wins ? Scotland has been shafted from the very beginning and is being shafted now.

    You go on to say that one of the arguements for Scottish Independence is that we will be able to avoid unpopular wars. To be honest, i don’t see this as being a problem. That comment actually sounds like slander to the many countries who do fight in wars. I’m pretty sure given half the chance that your family or friends that may be in the army wouldn’t like to be at war ? The Iraq war was illegal and Scottish Soldiers should never have been sent. Tony Blair is or was under investigation for it. I don’t take much notice of Tony Blair as it makes my blood boil. Not only will be gain access to more parts of the North Sea for Oil exploration, but there is well over £1 trillion worth of oil still to be discovered, not to mention Rockhall which hasn’t even been tapped into yet. Furthermore, we have a supply of over 200 years worth of coal under our feet for when clean burning coal plants come into effect, which they will. Yet, more…We have wind, solar, tidal and hydro power and are the world leader in renewables. In the 1970′s when Scotland discovered oil, we were told there was only about a 10 year supply by a Labour led government and that if we went independent that we would be poorer than Bangladesh. 36 years on, where are we now ? Up shit creek without a paddle and also, had we went independent we would be one of the richest countries within Europe. So, this chance to go indepedent again, with our new found energy supplied only but makes sense to the people who can actually have reason and agree to disagree. Your argument about the oil makes no sense and has to firm facts to support it. The UK government at the time Scotland discovered Oil had a report commissioned, which outlined that Scotland would be a very rich and prosperous nation through oil. This was hidden for over 30 years. It is called the McCrone report. I suggest you read it.

    You say that our claim to North Sea Oil is questionable at best, but you wont elaborate or explain why ? You have no facts to this. Financial collapase ? Our financial collapse between RBS and HBOS was down to the UK Government, yet us Scottish get blamed, because they are “Scottish Banks”. Yet again, when something goes wrong it’s Scottish, but by god if something is good, it’s British.

    Scotland has, and always will be a player on the world stage. Being an independent state just means we can do it better alone. We don’t need permission from a London based government 700 miles away. I want to be governed by a Scottish Party based in Scotland. As for your claims of Scotland being a republic, that is down to the people of Scotland to decide and no one else. At the present time, the Scottish National Party want to retain the Monarchy in an independent Scotland, which would make Scotland and independent Soveriegn State. As i have said all the way through this reply. Your information is very sketchy and has no binder. Your whole argument here is laughable and very offensive to myself, and undoubtable other Scots.

    You say you are a devout Catholic. I am a devout Scottish Nationalist and Patriot, and what your Catholic Church is to you, is what an Independent Scotland would mean to me. So in conclusion i hope that you can find my reply in amongst your other angry replies from Scots, and take heed of what i have said. Make sure you do proper research from both angles and not just the Unionist side of things.

    Eric.

24. 

    R Louis

    September 1, 2012 at 4:00 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    The real difficulty with this piece, and as others have eloquently alluded to above, is that much of the premise put forward for retaining Scotland within the United Kingdom is based upon romantic idealism. It is the kind of stuff no doubt that eminent bullingdon boy ‘Boris the clown’ in old London town, dreams of each night.

    I want Scottish independence simply because I cannot see, and nor have I ever heard, one single good reason why Scotland needs to have its affairs run from London. It is pure common sense from my perspective, that Scotland will be better managed by those who actually live here. Having Scotland run by ‘remote control’ from London, which is numerically dominated by MP’s and unelected ‘Lords’ of the South East of England is not only undemocratic, it is just plain old vanilla stupid.

    As to romanticised misty eyed viewpoints, I have to tell you that such a trait rests singularly within the minds of those such as yourself who cling to romantic idealised histories of the United Kingdom. From a Scottish independence perspective, it is purely about good common sense. Cold, hard facts.

    As to the nonsense about travel convenience, just consider, at present, right here in 2012, I can if I so choose, walk (sans passport) across the border from the United Kingdom to a foreign country, Ireland. There aren’t even border posts!! In continental Europe, I can drive from France to Germany with great ease.

    No, when you consider the reality as opposed to the obfuscation of the ‘Bitter together’ campaign, it is clear, ‘travel convenience’ as you put it, is not really relevant. The day after Scotland takes charge of its own affairs, I’ll still be able to hop on a train from Waverley to Kings Cross – or do you not realise that transport, including rail, in Scotland is already wholly under the control of the Scottish Government??

    Scotland running its own affairs will in my opinion be a good thing for Scotland AND England, and I honestly believe in many ways, it may strengthen the idea of the four nations working together on matters of mutual interest in the future. It will put an end to the cankering sore of London interference in Scottish matters, and may indeed lead to a better, more mature relationship between London and Scotland.

    History shows us quite clearly, the Union of 1707 was never wanted by the people of Scotland. In 2014, more than three hundred years later, Scots will for the very first time get the right to have their say on it. I know they will choose to end it, and vote YES to Scottish self rule.

25. 

    douglas clark

    September 1, 2012 at 4:19 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Eric Taylor,

    You say:

    “Theres rapists and murders in this country, of which the majority are immigrants and all they get is a few years in prison.”

    Eh!

    This is from the Scottish Government, ré racist incidents:

    “Where information on perpetrators was available, 82 per cent of perpetrators were White British, while 96 per cent of perpetrators were of any white origin, including White British, White Irish and Other White (which includes Gypsy / Traveller and Polish White) (Table 12).”

26. 

    James

    September 1, 2012 at 7:15 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Why are there Nationalists on a Unionist blog anyway? Too busy trolling than doing something worthwhile I guess. Also why are you *fine* people insulting the author of this post. Is it because she does not support Scottish Nationalism inspired by the movie Braveheart? Is it because she has not seen Scotland in first hand? You can argue with the post, but you don’t have to insult her.

    Now for the real issue. Scotland will NOT become independent, you “trolls” should give up on this silly idea. I probably angered every “troll” here, Well my answer to that is…

    HATERS GONNA HATE!

    1. 

       cynicalHighlander

       September 1, 2012 at 9:22 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

       Is that British Nationalists or Scottish ones that you are referring to?

    2. 

       Tom Duffin

       September 1, 2012 at 10:57 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

       James,
       Is this blog open only to those who are Unionist ? I’m sure the writer of the article appreciates that she was writing on the www and her article was available for all to see – and she also is probably a staunch defender of the right to free speech. What’s the problem with some of her readers arguing against the opinions she writes about?

       It’s a bit revealing that your only reply to the points explained in great detail by many of the respondents is a paltry….”Scotland will NOT become independent, you “trolls” should give up on this silly idea” C’mon is that the depth of your argument?

    3. 

       Arbroath 1320

       September 2, 2012 at 12:23 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

       “Why are there Nationalists on a Unionist blog anyway?”
       What’s wrong James don’t you like the TRUTH, or is it only the truth when the Daily Mail says it’s the truth!

       In your dreams Bubba!

       Thanks to the “great” work of your lord and master, David Cameron, he is doing everything within his power to almost guarantee a YES victory in 2014.

       Attacks on the disabled, attacks on the unemployed, attacks on the infirm, attacks on the lower working class, inability to balance a budget, protecting the rich and famous, taxing everyone to the extent that a significant number are considering suicide, slicing up the N.H.S.(in England and Wales), cutting the police numbers (in England), raising tuition fees, a FURTHER £10 BILLION worth of cuts to be enforced on the Scottish budget by Osborne, to name but a FEW of the reasons a growing number of Scots EVERY DAY are signing up to the YES campaign.

       Now lets see what the Scottish government’s aims and ideals are shall we:

       1) Cares about Scotland
       2) Cares about the people of Scotland
       3) Cares about the Environment of Scotland
       4) Fights for the rights of the people of Scotland
       5)Fights for the future of the people of Scotland
       6) Fights for the future generations of people of Scotland
       7) Looks to the future of Scotland
       8) Is capable of BALANCING a government budget (Unlike Westminster!)
       9) Does NOT consist of a group of YES men in the cabinet (unlike somewhere else I could mention!)
       10) Will take OUR country into membership of the U.N. and join the MAJORITY of countries NOT the Minority of countries. (Just for your information Niko, the MAJORITY are those who DO NOT hold WMD’s)
       11) Will ensure the REMOVAL of WMD’s from Scottish soil.
       12) Will use future oil revenues to build a future fund in a similar way to Norway, unlike Westminster that has just flittered away our natural resources revenue.
       13) Will fight for OUR fishermen
       14) Will fight for OUR farmers
       15) Will fight for the rights of OUR people
       16) Will do what is needed to PROTECT the disabled (Unlike your Big Daddy)
       17) Will do what is necessary to protect the infirm (Unlike Cameron)
       18) Will do the right thing for OUR Elderly ( Unlike Westminster)
       19) Will keep OUR National Health Service under Government control ( not sell it off in bits to PRIVATE companies like your Big daddy)
       20) Keep Scottish Water OUT of Private companies control

       Maybe you like to perservere with the Too wee, Too poor, too stupid line, but guess what James it aint working. Oh and don’t forget we’ve heard all this “jam tomorrow” garbage before. So Cameron’s promise of jam tomorrow doesn’t even get a look in. We were conned by this ridiculous “jam tomorrow” in the 1970′s and we fell for it. Once bitten TWICE shy. So Cameron’s jam promise is just yet another Tory sick joke!

       Do you honestly think that we are going to vote to stay in a union that is running so much debt that it would bankrupt most countries. Why on earth would we Scots want to stay in a failed union where the finances are running out of control with NO signs of it ending, instead it is only continuing to get WORSE!

       If you think that Scotland staying within the union is such a GREAT idea James why don’t you put up a list of 20 things that prove that we are Better Together.

       Oh by the way James you haven’t angered us. you see we are, unlike unionists, ABOVE such things. No indeed we are not angry, we just feel PITY for you!

27. 

    Tearlach

    September 1, 2012 at 10:15 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    “Why are there Nationalists on a Unionist blog anyway? Too busy trolling than doing something worthwhile I guess. Also why are you *fine* people insulting the author of this post. Is it because she does not support Scottish Nationalism inspired by the movie Braveheart? Is it because she has not seen Scotland in first hand? You can argue with the post, but you don’t have to insult her.

    Now for the real issue. Scotland will NOT become independent, you “trolls” should give up on this silly idea. I probably angered every “troll” here, Well my answer to that is…

    HATERS GONNA HATE!”

    And that folks, is the positive case for the Union.

    Lets just run through that again. James is saying that :-

    -Nationalists should not comment on Unionist websites, in case as we prove their arguments are mince;
    -People who know nothing abut Scotland, its politics or its culture should have priority in any discussion over those who live there;
    -The entire Nationalist movement dates from the impact of a dodgy “historical” movie, starring a Anglo-Australian actor with hair extensions;
    and;
    -all these discussions are meaningless as Scotland will never become independant because I say so, ya boo sucks.

    As I said – that positive case for the Union. Looks like independence is in the bag, if this is the level of debate.

28. 

    Union2012

    September 2, 2012 at 5:00 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    “Is this blog open only to those who are Unionist ?”

    No, the clue is in the title of the blog “Open Unionism”.
    As I said, it seems now a long time ago, all comments as long as they are not personally insulting and contain greater analytic depth than “What a load of crap” are welcome.

29. 

    Silverytay

    September 2, 2012 at 7:40 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    It would appear that a lot of people look at britain through rose tinted glasses .
    There is nothing great or good about britain .
    We were the country that invented the concentration camps not the germans .
    The atrocities we committed after the 2nd world war in defence of the empire
    came straight out of the gestapo handbook .
    Don’t believe me ? just google british atrocities in kenya , they are well documented .
    Over 600,000 innocent iraq civilians were murdered in what we now know was an illegal war .
    As for Scotland the unionists have been ripping us off for centuries .
    In the 70s when the oil was discovered they told us we were to poor , to stupid and the oil would never last .
    We now know differently , the unionists ripped the heart out of Scotland while squandering the oil revenues on london and the home counties .
    According to some experts there is still the same amount of oil under the sea as has already been extracted .
    It is a disgrace that while Scots are dying due to the cold and poverty the unionists and their rich friends still have their noses in the trough .
    An Independent Scotland has the potential to be the 5th richest country in europe while the r.u.k would only manage 16th at best .
    According to the economist Prof Steve Keen the u.k economy is now nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme and like all ponzi schemes it will collapse .
    Like all dying empires everything is sucked into the capitol at the expense of the
    outlying areas .
    We in Scotland now have the chance to make our own decisions instead of having the decisions made for us by a political elite in london and the home counties .
    I for one will be voting for independence for the sake of my children and grandchildren and future generations of Scots .

30. 

    Barney Thomson

    September 2, 2012 at 10:49 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Thanks Pearl, best laugh I’ve had for ages. You’ve been ripped apart so badly above that it would be cruel for me to join in the feeding frenzy. But, honestly, you deserved it.

    I would ask, though, are you proud to be a citizen of the United States, whose constitution is based on freedom and the right of the individual to do the best for themselves as they themselves see fit? Why can’t you see that the Scots are in the process of doing the same, albeit some 238 years after your forebears did? Let them do it their own way; it’s for them to decide and, frankly, none of your business.

    Thomas Jefferson, 1776 (American Declaration of Independence) -
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

    Adam Ferguson of Logierait, 1767 (On the History of Civil Society) -
    “If, in reality, courage and a heart devoted to the good of mankind are the constituents of human felicity, the kindness which is done infers a happiness in the person from whom it proceeds, not in him on whom it is bestowed; and the greatest good which men possessed of fortitude and generosity can procure to their fellow creatures is a participation of this happy character. If this be the good of the individual, it is likewise that of mankind; and virtue no longer imposes a task by which we are obliged to bestow upon others that good from which we ourselves refrain; but supposes, in the highest degree, as possessed by ourselves, that state of felicity which we are required to promote in the world”

31. 

    Richard W. Hoover

    September 3, 2012 at 1:29 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Far too many are unfair to Pearl of Tyburn. Sure she is a citizen of the U.S.A., an “outsider,” as am I. But note that she was invited by Open Unionism to express her opinion– a guest as it were. And, like it or not, outsiders do have opinions, especially if, like Pearl of Tyburn, they have a warm heart for the UK, and for Scotland in particular. No matter that this American teenager has never been outside her country.
    Some call her historical arguments and appeals to tradition “out of touch” and “poppycock.” But history and tradition can’t be dismissed so easily inasmuch as they bind, whether in one way or in others.
    I don’t know much about Scotland, but after reading Preble’s bitter books, “Glencoe” and “Culloden,” I wondered how Scotland was ever able to function afterward, pull it all together– the Highlanders and the Lowlanders, the Campbell’s and the O’Neil’s and the other warring clans, the Catholics and the Protestants, the English and the Scots. There must have been a fascinating aftermath of reconciliation here. I would guess that many divisive issues, the equivalents of the modern day ones raised above– finances, NHS, oil, fisheries, foreign wars, nuclear weapons– were, at length, overcome by something more powerful, something along the lines of Pearl of Tyburn’s thinking.
    As a junior American Foreign Service Officer posted in Bonn, I went to London in the spring of 1972. I had long planned to attend the opening of the King Tut exhibit at the British Museum. Got there early and was up close. Suddenly, the Queen appeared on the steps with several of her ladies. She spoke briefly and eloquently. I was astounded by her diminutive size. I’m gawking. Honest to heaven, I was swept away by irrepressible historical forces I never dreamed were within. I joined in the clapping and the cheering. Maybe it was the realization that, long ago, we once belonged to one another. Maybe I was thinking of the culture inherited, thinking that without the British Empire there would have been no United States, thinking that without General James Wolfe at Quebec, I might be writing my travel diary in French!
    This is only to say that, for their own sakes, I hope the Scottish people are really sure of what they seem bent on doing, that they have taken into account the power of history and tradition, expressed in the appeals made by Pearl of Tyburn and others.

32. 

    Richard W. Hoover

    September 3, 2012 at 2:04 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Sorry, everyone. I did not mean the Campbell’s and the O’Neil’s, directly above, but the Campbell’s and the MacDonald’s!
    Richard Hoover
    Front Royal, Virginia

33. 

    douglas clark

    September 3, 2012 at 6:14 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Richard W Hoover,

    Couple of points. Rose of Tyburn said this on her own blog:

    “I believe in a British sense of community and common purpose because I have experienced it, both sides the Tweed, and nothing that anyone says will make that any less real.”

    It is kind of tough to imagine that you can experience something like that without actually being there, no?

    I actually welcome this sort of discussion. You said that you felt swept away when you heard the Queen. In a similar way I felt incredibly patriotic when we sent our troops down to the Falklands. To be honest I really don’t know why. In the scheme of things it was a paltry little war, but it felt good to be on the ‘right’ side for once in my lifetime.

    But there were, as always, unexpected consequences. Margaret Thatcher, a béte noir of mine, was re-elected on the back of that spat. Now that was a hard lesson to learn.

    You will perhaps forgive me for it being amongst the last times that I felt that sort of patriotic impulse.

    Nothing much that we have done since then has made me feel the same way.

    Nowadays I look on it as a bit of an abberation.

    You, sir, can recall an event that can have made no appreciable difference to your economic well-being. I, on the other hand, recall an event that had a lasting impact, especially on Scotland, specifically at a domestic level.

    Politics is the personal.

    Best wishes.

34. 

    douglas clark

    September 3, 2012 at 6:22 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Oops, Pearl of Tyburn….dunno where I got Rose from.

35. 

    Maria

    September 3, 2012 at 11:36 am (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Heavens! The West Lothian Question and Barnett Formula mean that it is imperative that England breaks free from Scotland!

36. 

    Pearl of Tyburn

    September 3, 2012 at 8:39 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Hello, everyone.

    First, thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my article. I am truly sorry if I offended anyone through my writing. It was not my intent to cause insult, merely to express my opinion on the current situation as I was invited to do by “Open Unionism”. You have every right to disagree with me. I respect your opinions, as I hoped you would respect mine.

    I would now like to post some closing remarks, and I ask you please to let things lie here instead of carrying on this debate until “doomsday”. I hope we have learned something from each other and are now capable of parting ways in peace.

    Douglas Clark, with regards to your claim that it would be difficult to experience the spirit of British “community and common purpose” if I’d never been to the UK, well, you’re right. However, it is not impossible, especially with modern technology and overseas relationships that are just as real to me as “in the flesh” ones.

    I have befriended and spoken with various Brits who love their country and look to the future with optimism. They have helped make their long history come to life for me, and unlocked the secrets of their heritage. I will always be grateful to them, and I fully believe that they have the resilience and tenacity to take the problems of the modern world in stride as one united people.

    Douglas Clark, I am truly sorry to hear that you lost your feelings of patriotism towards Britain after Margaret Thatcher was reelected. But I do know how you feel; I could hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” anymore after Pres. Obama got elected, and will probably feel the same way if he gets reelected this year. I disagree fiercely with what the man stands for and the laws he enacts, sending this country down a path of moral degeneration and economic ruin.

    But in spite of this, in spite of myself, I will always love my country, every last square inch of her. I hope never to see the day when she fragments or collapses. These are the invisible ties that bind, the ties of history and tradition that do mean something profoundly significant. They hold the same significance in every land.

    I never said the UK was flawless, nor did I attempt to romanticize her history. I was simply highlighting the “historical strivings” she took to achieve the things that most of us hold most dear. All countries have their sins, and ones with empires tend to drift towards unfairness and barbaric conduct. But the British Empire is all but gone now, replaced by the Commonwealth. I believe that Britain is capable of standing on her own two feet and moving forward, while at the same time learning from her past mistakes.

    I greatly admire Scottish heritage, which is inextricably intertwined with British heritage. They are one and the same. I believe in the Scottish people so much that I have total confidence that they are capable of rising to challenges presented within the UK and working to change things for the better. “It’s a proven act”; it’s all been done before through persistence and compromise, with far more daunting problems than the present ones.

    In conclusion, whatever the results of this referendum, I will keep you all in my prayers and hope for the happy day when we will meet on a brighter plain where all past injuries and disagreements will be forgotten.

    Pax Tecum,
    PEARL OF TYBURN

    P.S. “Rose of Tyburn”? That’s pretty, Douglas! Tapadh leat!

37. 

    Mhairi McAlpine

    September 5, 2012 at 5:19 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    Ah dinnae ken how they that cam frae o’er the seas can try tae tell us whit is best fer us.

    Awa wi’ yer Brit-nationalism.

38. 

    douglas clark

    September 5, 2012 at 10:48 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

    It is interesting, to say the least, to read what others may think of us. For that is the world we enter when we become an independent nation. I do not see how writing in a pretendy Scots makes your points any more valid.

    Haud yer wheesht!

1. The Union as Seen from Afar | Referendum 2014 | Scoop.it

   August 31, 2012 at 8:37 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   [...] The United Kingdom has always held a special place in my heart because of the sheer richness and complexity of her cultural heritage.  [...]

2. State of the Union: November 2012 » Open Unionism

   November 8, 2012 at 9:00 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   [...] “The Union, As Seen from Afar” – In a gloriously frank and much-debated piece, American student, ‘Britophile’ and devout Catholic ‘Pearl of Tyburn’ offers her transatlantic perspective on the constitutional issue, and prompts heated discussion in the comments. [...]

3. URL

   January 5, 2013 at 4:01 pm (UTC 0) Link to this comment

   … [Trackback]…

   [...] Read More: openunionism.com/the-union-as-seen-from-afar/ [...]…