Unionism, why?

[rockmejoe]

I just remembered why I joined this forum. Uh, oh yeah. I'm all for Scottish Independence, ya dig? But, I'm constantly being told that it would be bad for Scotland (recently had to partake in an interview during a documentary with some minister who's name I won't reveal). Anyway, one of the usual excuses is that Scotland spends more of the budget than it raises. Okay, fair point. Taking this one example then, as I'm sure there are many more, why do Unionists want such an expensive back garden?

[djbarry]

Who cares. Why can't we all just be friends?

[rockmejoe]

It's just pissed me off today, David Cameron nonchalantly giving a speech to the Scottish Tories. I can't remember exactly what he said but it went something like this "I don't want to be just the Prime Minister of England, but I want to be the Prime Minister of Scotland and England!" Called that wee snivelling frew Wendy Alexander "Bendy Wendy" and had all his school headmistress type supporters out front harking back "Bendy Wendy" every second they got.

[LesMTS]

Seeing the union is the status quo, the question should be "Independence, why?".
There's always a lot of talk about how it could be done, not enough about why it should be.
The union works just fine, and it's not like we're an oppressed people, such major upheaval shouldn't be undertaken when the primary reason seems to be satisfying some romantic ideal.

[supernothing]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Seeing the union is the status quo, the question should be "Independence, why?".

Ye joking? Since when does political argument rest on implicit acceptance of the status quo?

[Zooropa]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

"Independence, why?".

YouTube - Britain's Got Talent graces Scotland...

[MarkMono]

Not that change for changes sake should be encouraged.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by supernothing

Ye joking? Since when does political argument rest on implicit acceptance of the status quo?

You don't have to accept the status quo, I never said that you did. But asking "why change things?" rather than "why maintain things as they are?" is always the better way for this type of argument to proceed, as it gives direction and purpose.

[supernothing]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

You don't have to accept the status quo, I never said that you did. But asking "why change things?" rather than "why maintain things as they are?" is always the better way for this type of argument to proceed, as it gives direction and purpose.

Questioning the justification of people who want to keep things the way they are, other than simply "well it is the way things are, and it's awrite", seems an entirely legitimate endevour. You seemed to suggest it was futile in some way.
That said: we can't really seperate the arguments for keeping the union from those for disolving it, they are two sides of the same coin really.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by supernothing

Questioning the justification of people who want to keep things the way they are, other than simply "well it is the way things are, and it's awrite", seems an entirely legitimate endevour. You seemed to suggest it was futile in some way.
That said: we can't really seperate the arguments for keeping the union from those for disolving it, they are two sides of the same coin really.

Yeah, I agree they are two sides of the same coin and, within the context of an AN debate I guess it doesn't really matter too much. In reality, though, and if actual executable decisions were being made regarding Scottish independence, an argument against the union is not as powerful or compelling as an argument for independence.

[supernothing]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

The union works just fine, and it's not like we're an oppressed people

It would be extremely offensive to compare the plight of the Scottish people to that of the Palestinians, or the Chechens, or the Western Saharans - you're right that we are not an oppressed people in those terms. We can, largely, say what we want, travel and work where we want and live our lives relatively free of arbitrary punnishement or death. If we talk about oppression in comparison to this we're a joke.

Nationalism is the view that the political and national unit should be congruent. I don't believe that the Scottish nation is a homogeneos dynasty stretching back into the heathery mists of time - it's a (fairly recent) cultural construction, based (like most nations) in the collective immagination of it's people. Things could have turned out differently: but a series of historical, political and cultural events have led to the situation where the Scottish nation is imagined as distinct from the British, and arguably necessarily so.
Given that this is the case I think that to be subject to rule from another national group - one with which many of our inhabitants simply are not a part of, is a form of oppression. I think Scotland has (or at least immagines it has - which ammounts to pretty much the same thing) a much more leftist, internationalist and radically socialist tradition than England (as a whole). I think that as part of the union the ambitions of many scots are stifled by being part of a political system that has to cowtow to insular English conservativism, and the best way to remedy this is to secede from that political system.

[AWESOMEUS MAXIMUS]

fuck unionism

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by supernothing

It would be extremely offensive to compare the plight of the Scottish people to that of the Palestinians, or the Chechens, or the Western Saharans - you're right that we are not an oppressed people in those terms. We can, largely, say what we want, travel and work where we want and live our lives relatively free of arbitrary punnishement or death. If we talk about oppression in comparison to this we're a joke.

Nationalism is the view that the political and national unit should be congruent. I don't believe that the Scottish nation is a homogeneos dynasty stretching back into the heathery mists of time - it's a (fairly recent) cultural construction, based (like most nations) in the collective immagination of it's people. Things could have turned out differently: but a series of historical, political and cultural events have led to the situation where the Scottish nation is imagined as distinct from the British, and arguably necessarily so.
Given that this is the case I think that to be subject to rule from another national group - one with which many of our inhabitants simply are not a part of, is a form of oppression. I think Scotland has (or at least immagines it has - which ammounts to pretty much the same thing) a much more leftist, internationalist and radically socialist tradition than England (as a whole). I think that as part of the union the ambitions of many scots are stifled by being part of a political system that has to cowtow to insular English conservativism, and the best way to remedy this is to secede from that political system.

Being a culturally distinct minority is no argument, in itself, for political autonomy. Entertaining it as such could be a slippery slope.
Any injustices or implications experienced for that minority would have to be much more grave than they are for the Scottish people for me to be convinced that the upheaval required for independence was necessary.

[Mos Def]

What would become of people like me, a Scot working for the BRITISH Government, in the face of Scottish independence? Would I get kicked out as a result of not, technically, being a British National? That would be my biggest beef with independence - becoming unemployed!

[supernothing]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Being a culturally distinct minority is no argument, in itself, for political autonomy

Why not?

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Entertaining it as such could be a slippery slope.

Im assuming you mean to other culturally distinct groups calling for direct control over thier own lives. So much the better!

Originally Posted by Mos Def

What would become of people like me, a Scot working for the BRITISH Government, in the face of Scottish independence? Would I get kicked out as a result of not, technically, being a British National? That would be my biggest beef with independence - becoming unemployed!

I'm assuming plenty of other foreign nationals work for the British Government. You would simply become another one, but working for the ENGLISH government. Or you could come back and help our nation rise like a pheonix from the ashes! [/alex salmond]
Upon independence not much would change in the practicalities - we wouldn't need passports between England and Scotland, working arangements would probably stay the same.