But what was more interesting for me (even more so than a Labour apparachnik’s threat to shoot reporters) is the first part of this line reported in the Daily Express:
He went his furthest yet in admitting that devolution has weakened the link between Scotland and England and conceded: "Of course it is possible that Scotland can stand alone – that is true."
Did he actually admit that? It’s certainly not covered in any of the other papers; you could interpret The Scotsman’s report, for example, as Dave almost encouraging the secessionists:
The Conservative leader, campaigning in Glenrothes ahead of next month's by-election, also attacked Labour for trying to "frighten" Scots away from independence.
The truth is, of course, that devolution has weakened the Union, but I just wish that Cameron and the Tories in both Scotland and Wales would admit (openly) that simple fact because only then can they get down to the business of putting the brakes on and ensuring that this particular constitutional experiment doesn’t wreak any more damage upon the United Kingdom.
24 comments:
The "Unionist" response is quite gleeful at Salmond's current discomfort.
Crisis body blow to Alex's dreams
The last paragraph speaks volumes.
"Why settle for running Scotland when we already run England too? It's Gordon Brown that RBS has to be thankful for, it's Alistair Darling that First Minister Salmond has to go bunnet-in hand to, and it's all those Scots before them – Robin Cook, Malcolm Rifkind, George Younger – that ran England before them."
Exactly. With "Unionists" like that, give me the Nationalists.
Cameron was quoted in the Scotsman saying:
He said: "Of course it is possible that Scotland can stand alone – that is true. I just think it would be better off in the United Kingdom. Better off for all of us."
In the Herald it was put:
Tory leader David Cameron conceded yesterday that Scotland could "stand alone" - but pledged to fight for the survival of the Union.
Cracking down on devolution by the Tories would be manna from heaven for the SNP. A Hungary 1956/Czechoslovakia 1968 solution - without the tanks - would probably push many pro-home rule but agin independence members of the Scottish establishment (the majority of whom can be presently put into the above category) into the nationalist tent.
From all accounts the Tories tend to agree with this and seem to be discussing a way of keeping tanks off devolved areas lawns in return for the SNP doing the same thing on reserved issues.
Last Sunday it was reported by the Scottish Mail on Sunday (hardly pro-devolution) that the Tories planned to grant Scotland pretty much full financial autonomy.
I'm not really surprised at the Daily Express spinning things a bit. Its Scottish edition is the closest thing to an SNP-backing daily newspaper there is.
Its Scottish edition is the closest thing to an SNP-backing daily newspaper there is.
And, if I remember correctly, the edition sold in England recently ran an article about the inequities suffered by England re the "NHS".
Would you like Britain to be in an equal union with Russia? If not, why not? Is it because Russia being larger would dominate your defence and foreign affairs policy?
Is it because you would be outvoted in the 'equal' russian parliament? How about a 'union' with the USA? Not on for the same reasons?
Why then do you PRETEND that you can't understand the case for Scottish independence?
Scotland is outvoted by a factor of 11-1 in the UK parliament. That's not an equal situation and it never will be.
Would you like Britain to be in an equal union with Russia? If not, why not?
Because I’m British, not Russian.
How about a 'union' with the USA? Not on for the same reasons?
Yes, because I’m British not American.
Why then do you PRETEND that you can't understand the case for Scottish independence?
I understand that some people may consider themselves solely Scottish; I personally think they lose out by refusing to accept they can also be a part of a bigger multi-cultural, multi-ethnic identity, but in the end that’s their decision. The case for Scottish independence I don’t agree with; however, I think you’re slightly underestimating my intellectual capacity by saying that I can’t *understand* it. I think perhaps you mean that I refuse to agree with you on the question of Scottish independence?
Scotland is outvoted by a factor of 11-1 in the UK parliament. That's not an equal situation and it never will be.
Liverpool’s, Yorkshire’s, Belfast’s (when they turn up), Cornwall’s MPs are also “outvoted” if we follow your logic. But (as far as I’m aware) the large majority of the Scottish electorate voted for MPs from the mainstream UK parties to represent them at Westminster; most of the Scottish electorate are represented by an MP from the UK’s governing party- perhaps they too are pretending thet don’t understand the case for Scottish independence? As mentioned above, much of the Westminster Establishment are Scottish, we wouldn’t now have a Labour government if it weren’t for their large number of Scottish MPs, our Prime-Minister and Chancellor are Scottish…I could go on. The day Scotland’s electorate vote a clean sweep of SNP MPs will be the day the you have a point.
>>I understand that some people may consider themselves solely Scottish;<<
What were we pre-1707? Were we still really British but didnae know it yet? Bizarre. And those of you in Ireland who held allegiances to England and the Stewart/Hanoverian inbreeds at that time. Were you guys British as well? Incidently I am not one of those "some" that you speak of, I also consider myself a European.
Ach we live in interesting times.
What were we pre-1707?
The same place half of modern Europe and the US, Canada etc were, not in legal or constitutional existance, but the political, cultural, social and economic links were already in place.
Incidently I am not one of those "some" that you speak of, I also consider myself a European.
Good, so do I and it sits quite easily with my British and Irish identity. As I said in the comment above, I've no problem with people defining their identity anyway they want; it's when they attempt to define the rest of the population's at the same time that we move into very dodgy territory.
Perhaps I am wrong or simply reading too much into your avoidance of the bizarre. Are you really suggesting that being British was inevitable, in the same way that nation states in Europe evolved and the emergence of a USA? We have these same links that you speak of with many former Commonwealth countries and the USA, are we to merge to become a yet as unknown nationality?
Did the descendants of the planters in Ireland consider themselves to be British pre-1707/1801?
Also the British AND Irish thing is a complete cop out.
The formation in 1707 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain codified the various links that had existed previously into a civic national identity. Was it inevitable? After the plantation, the development of a common civic identity stretching over England, (parts of) Ireland, Scotland and Wales was I think- but that's not same (as you seem to imply) that it was an all-encompasing one, it was only into the 20th century that (some) people in any part of the Uk would define themselves solely as British; Carson for example was quite happy to describe himself as Irish and British. So, the settlers coming as they did from England and Scotland would have shared a close and common identity with the kith and kin left behind, the Act of Union merely put a label to hat identity.
Much of N America and much of the Commonwealth was much closer politically and constitutionally to us at one point, they decided it wasn't for them and headed off on their own way. Although I think they'll stay friends, can't really see them pressing for political union again;)
Also the British AND Irish thing is a complete cop out.
Why? You wouldn't presumably have a problem with the term British- Asians, it also comprises of two identities. It's the big weakness of Irish and Scottish nationalism, this complete refusal to believe that it is possible to be British and Irish/Scottish- have enough confidence in your own identity to let others decide for themselves. I'm proud to be Irish, but not you nor anyone else gets to define what form that pride in my identity should take.
I have no intention in defining your identity. Many of those who share your political beliefs have a profound hatred of Irishness, despite the fact that for 30 generations or more that is what they are. Hatred and bigotry are soul mates. Thus many of the more honest ones reject Irishness outright, despite the idiocy of their claims. Thus attaching an allegiance to a momentary political union(UK) is in my mind a cop out. My own Da claims to be Irish, it is about feeling of identity I know that. Doesn't make it any less ridiculous though.
This temporary state of affairs is the oddity not considering oneself solely Scottish. In terms of your original remarks. The English aristocracy had more in common with the French anf Germans for most of the last millenium. Does this count, in terms of any percieved cultural links between parts of the Scottish lowlands(debateable), parts of Ireland, Wales and England? I say that your views concerning the links did not make a British state inevitable any more than the anchluss between Austria and Germany which has far closer links.
>>So, the settlers coming as they did from England and Scotland would have shared a close and common identity with the kith and kin left behind, the Act of Union merely put a label to hat identity.<<
Perhaps Scot with Scotland, Englander with England but not neccesarily with each other. After all the term Scotch Irish was used not British Irish.
"Many of those who share your political beliefs have a profound hatred of Irishness, despite the fact that for 30 generations or more that is what they are."
"Thus many of the more honest ones reject Irishness outright, despite the idiocy of their claims."
It is a geographical fact, if you’re born on the island of Ireland you’re technically Irish, whether you take any pride in that fact or not. Regarding the ‘Irishness” rejected, too often Unionists have let how it is defined in N.Ireland by those who have a political reason for keeping that definition as narrow as possible, determine their feeling towards what could be a much more inclusive identity than it is presently seen as.
Thus attaching an allegiance to a momentary political union(UK) is in my mind a cop out.
It’s hardly momentary, it’s been on the go for longer than many of the nation states presently in the EU and it also involves much more than mere political union- cultural and social ties are also there as are obviously the economic ones
The English aristocracy had more in common with the French and Germans for most of the last millenium. Does this count, in terms of any percieved cultural links between parts of the Scottish lowlands(debateable), parts of Ireland, Wales and England?
The “aristocracy” were and remain a rule onto themselves, they probably would still have more in common with their couterparts in mainland Europe than the average bloke down the pub, so I don’t think it counts in the overall debate.
I say that your views concerning the links did not make a British state inevitable any more than the anchluss between Austria and Germany which has far closer links.
And yet, as I said, it’s lasted over 300 years- the Austria/Germany "union" lasted less than 10- something much stronger than mere political and economic expediency has kept it together.
So we are agreed that GB then UK was far from inevitable despite some shared culture. Thus the nationality that we have is paramount, and not a political entity whose time might be up.
That was all I wanted to get across. My Scottishness has far more significance than any composite and to me foreign identity.
As far as my earlier bit about cop outs over the Irish/British identity. Please that narrow definition nonsense won't work, I've witnessed debates on slugger that go on for ever. You know the score as well as I, though I welcome your unabashed ownership of your own Irishness. It is not others who own the keys to the chains you know.
Cornwall's MP's are indeed outvoted and there is a nationalist party in Cornwall (Mebyon Kernow) which is campaigning for independence.
All the countries which make up the UK have their own genuine identity besides Britishness.
Scots, Welsh, English (and Cornish) and Irish.
Each can have their own relationship with the EU and have their own flag flying at the UN.
What then is the need for Britain?
Britain actually stifles all the countries within the union and it allows English MP's to dominate the rest.
That might have been acceptable years ago (though many people have constantly argued against it) but it is not appropriate to the 21st century.
I don't want Trident, I want a LIT, I don't want ID cards, I don't want to live in a society which has detention without trial, I don't want my Government to be bullied and swindled financially by the UK. All these issues are fundamentally affected by the right of self determination ie independence.
I also don't want my newspapers to be dominated by another country I don't want to read Scottish editions or British papers which use their English editions to attack Scotland.
Do you not care about any of these things?
Tony
My Scottishness has far more significance than any composite and to me foreign identity.
That's up to you, it's just an acknowledgement needed that others may feel different throughout the UK and in the end they have has much right to composite identity as you have to your Scottishness. Some within the SNP are prepared to "grant" that right, I have heard very, very few within Northern Irish politics that would even admit it's even possible.
Please that narrow definition nonsense won't work, I've witnessed debates on slugger that go on for ever.
I didn't say who I believe narrowed that definition, suffice to say that, as my father relates, plenty more who voted Unionist automatically referred to themselves as Irish pre 68/69 than today.
FreeScotlandNow
Cornwall's MP's are indeed outvoted and there is a nationalist party in Cornwall (Mebyon Kernow) which is campaigning for independence.
How many MPs do they have? Again, back to the point I made earlier about the SNP, the day that Cornwall returns a full quota of Mebyon Kenow MPs is the day that they have a valid argument re independence.
All the countries which make up the UK have their own genuine identity besides Britishness.
Scots, Welsh, English (and Cornish) and Irish.
I wouldn’t disagree with you on that one.
Each can have their own relationship with the EU and have their own flag flying at the UN.
What then is the need for Britain?
Britain actually stifles all the countries within the union and it allows English MP's to dominate the rest.
But, again, I return to my earlier point; those English, like their Scottish colleagues, don’t vote as a national bloc, they represent the three main parties, who also return Mps in both Wales and Scotland (and hopefully soon N.Ireland). Why do we need Britain? We don’t need Britain in the same way that we don’t need the EU, we could “survive” without both of them, but I want to do a little better than surviving economically and culturally and socially, I believe that a United Kingdom of many diverse identities is a much better place to live in. Re the UN and EU, they (an independent Scotland and Wales) would have less influence obviously than they do collectively now as part of the UK- your problem is that you don’t feel the UK government acts strongly enough in your interests versus the other large Euro powers? You have at least a potential to change that by remaining within a similar larger Euro-power.
I don't want Trident, I want a LIT, I don't want ID cards, I don't want to live in a society which has detention without trial, I don't want my Government to be bullied and swindled financially by the UK. All these issues are fundamentally affected by the right of self determination ie independence.
I agree with you on all your four first points- but they are the result of a distinctly anti-liberal Labour government and all those measures have been voted on and agreed to by Scottish, Welsh and N.irish Mps- unfortunately.
I also don't want my newspapers to be dominated by another country I don't want to read Scottish editions or British papers which use their English editions to attack Scotland.
By far your weakest point. Read what you want to read, the internet gives you that infinite choice. I’m not that interested in reading the British newspapers being dominated by politicale events in another country (the US) I simply don’t read them. If you want to find a pro-Scottish papers/reporters/blogs, it doesn’t take that long to find them
Do you not care about any of these things?
I do care about my country and my nation, that’s why I write this blog.
"I just wish that Cameron and the Tories in both Scotland and Wales would admit (openly) that simple fact because only then can they get down to the business of putting the brakes on"
You mean ignore Scotland's seperate interests altogether because that is what happened during the last Tory Government. Luckily we have long memories in Scotland and we have an escape route, independence.
"By far your weakest point. Read what you want to read, the internet gives you that infinite choice."
I was in NI recently and it was divided in two equally tribal (totally disinterested in each other) types of newspapers. While this is probably useful to Britain as it perpetuates divide 'n' rule it's not like that anywhere else.
My problem is that the Scottish independence argument is not supported by ANY newspaper in Scotland. The English owned Express has a few warm words for the SNP but that's it.
This is not healthy because it skews political debate. English papers which say one thing in England and another in Scotland are fundamentally dishonest and are treating our people like idiots.
I don't want to read cheerleading for my views but I do want to read independent coverage which reports the NEWS.
Not everyone reads the blogs etc so this unfairly skews the balance in favour of Britain.
If you accept your Irish identity then you must accept that your country voted for independence. Britain then invaded and almost defeated Ireland militarily. They then forced a settlement which allowed Britain to keep the colonised part (colonised on he orders of James VI a true traitor to his native land who saw Scotland as a shire!).
This action (the post ww I occupation) was illegal under international law but the Irish Free State was effectively forced to accept it.
You must be very niave to imagine Britain has any love for any Irishman, even those who don't put Ireland first but base their identity on religion.
How are the unionists portrayed in the press? Why does Ian Paisley feel he has common cause with Alex Salmond?
Your post imagines it is better to ignore the Scots and Welsh and perhaps get rid of devolution altogether. The more logical answer is to move to independence for all the countries.
This will leave NI out on a limb undoubtedly but it has never been anywhere else.
I want the Saltire at the UN. I want an independent relationship with the EU where Britain can't sell out our fishing to get concessions elsewhere (as has already happened).
Scots, Welsh, NI, all are outvoted in this unequal union. Think about it from our perspective and you will realise that Britain is bust.
Also, people who vote for unionist parties don't necessarily support the union. Many Labour voters for example (40%) support independence as Britain will find out when we hold our referendum in 2010.
I suggest you should start building bridges with your fellow Irihmen because soon it will be a choice between England or Ireland as Britain is very shortly going to break up.
In those circumstances would you choose England or is it only Britain that you love?
"I agree with you on all your four first points- but they are the result of a distinctly anti-liberal Labour government and all those measures have been voted on and agreed to by Scottish, Welsh and N.irish Mps- unfortunately."
Not true. Scotland's MP's voted AGAINST Trident!
Check this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6452275.stm
This show the problem of being in a union where we are outvoted by a factor of 11-1. We don't need Trident, Don't want Trident, voted against Trident, but we're getting Trident because our Scottish MP's even when they vote as a bloc are ignored.
This show the problem of being in a union where we are outvoted by a factor of 11-1. We don't need Trident, Don't want Trident, voted against Trident, but we're getting Trident because our Scottish MP's even when they vote as a bloc are ignored.
I stand corrected...but it was a majority of Scottish MPs as opposed to a bloc (some Scottish Labour voted with the government).
Unless we decide to regulate the press, it will continue to be governed by market-pressure; there are “tribal” papers in NI beause there is money to be made out to portraying then news that one tribe or the other wants to hear. If, however, a paper becomes too "tribal" (even in NI),so much so that any semblance of objectivity is lost, they lose readers and go out of business- Daily Ireland was an example of this. If a newspaper in Scotland, or the UK as a whole, perceives a potential market in producing a paper with a pro-independence line, then it’ll be produced. The main point remains, in the modern internet age you are not forced to expose yourself to one point of view.
If you accept your Irish identity then you must accept that your country voted for independence.
And if the collective majority of the Uk voted to keep the Union at the same time, as Scotland voted for independence, what would be the best way forward in your opinion?
Britain then invaded and almost defeated Ireland militarily. They then forced a settlement which allowed Britain to keep the colonised part (colonised on he orders of James VI a true traitor to his native land who saw Scotland as a shire!).
This action (the post ww I occupation) was illegal under international law but the Irish Free State was effectively forced to accept it.
It was an agreement accepted by the vast majority of the entire island. How was it illegal under international law? Has it ever been challenged through the courts, international or otherwise?
You must be very niave to imagine Britain has any love for any Irishman, even those who don't put Ireland first but base their identity on religion.
And I thought the world loved the Irish! Our right to call ourselves British doesn’t depend on what someone in Tunbridge Wells or wherever thinks of us. That fact is the foundation of the Belfast Agreement and was agreed to by not only the ROI’s government but also the SDLP and SF.
How are the unionists portrayed in the press? Why does Ian Paisley feel he has common cause with Alex Salmond?
Paisley is a geriatric old fool, a bigot and an Ulster nationalist, his opinion is completely immaterial.
Also, people who vote for unionist parties don't necessarily support the union.
If independence was as important to them as it obviously is for you, then they wouldn’t be voting for Labour or the Tories.
Many Labour voters for example (40%) support independence as Britain will find out when we hold our referendum in 2010.
Have you seen any of the recent opinion polls on the subject?
I suggest you should start building bridges with your fellow Irihmen because soon it will be a choice between England or Ireland as Britain is very shortly going to break up.
Our relationship with the ROI has improved greatly over the last few years and both they and the Unionist hierarchy seem more than happy to stick with the current "friendly neighbour" policy at the minute. But in the very unlikely case of a break-up, you’ve forgotten one other possible scenario. What if the people of Northern Ireland voted, not England or the Republic, but Scotland? After all there are very close cultural, social and political links between the two countries…how would you react to that option, democratically expressed at the ballot box?
In those circumstances would you choose England or is it only Britain that you love?
Fortunately I don’t think it’s a choice we’ll ever have to face; the United Kingdom is my nation and it consists of four indivisible parts, naturally I’ve the greatest feeling/loyalty for my own part of the UK, but regarding the other three, it’s impossible to pull them apart.
>>What if the people of Northern Ireland voted, not England or the Republic, but Scotland?<<
We have just recently marginalised our own Orange bigots, why would we take on any more? Not to say that the million of you are Orange bigots, but these guys generally represent you and at the very least tacitly acknowledged at the ballot box as doing so.
>>Paisley is a geriatric old fool, a bigot and an Ulster nationalist, his opinion is completely immaterial.<<
History will be kind to Paisley though. His Saul on the road to Damascus moment has sadly not been followed up by Unionism in general. No surrender and aw that.
>>It(partition) was an agreement accepted by the vast majority of the entire island.<<
Aye gunboat diplomacy, Churchill had promised all out attack and indefinite occupation if there was no agreement on British terms.
We have just recently marginalised our own Orange bigots, why would we take on any more? Not to say that the million of you are Orange bigots, but these guys generally represent you and at the very least tacitly acknowledged at the ballot box as doing so.
The OO in Ulster has about 80,000 members, about 340,000 people voted "Unionist" at the last election, so I'm not quite sure where the million comes from...but OK, one of the reasons you wouldn't want Scotland to united with Ni would be cultural, the import, as you see it, of Orange bigotry. What other political, cultural and economic disadvantages can you imagine?
Aye gunboat diplomacy, Churchill had promised all out attack and indefinite occupation if there was no agreement on British terms.
Do you know that Valera was once asked in a private conversation what had been his biggest mistake. His answer: "Not accepting the Treaty". It's unlikely that British (or American) public opinion would have been prepared to accept all-out war in the island, it's also unlikely Britain (by then running the Empire at aloss and recovering from WW1) would have the economic wherewithall to sustain it. Collins used "the threat" as a lever to obtain acceptance of the Treaty, he was astute enough to know the reality. A majority accepted the treaty in the Dail, at Stormont and at Westminster, the ROI's government have recently said that it is from that date the real independence of the ROI began.
I was of the opinion that there was around a million Unionists in the north of Ireland.
Apart from bigotry there are no disadvantages of any note worth mentioning, plenty of positives. My real opinion on the matter is that we in Scotland and Ireland as a whole could have a yet to be worked out loose confederation. It smoothes the inevitable unification of Ireland and recognises the closeness of two peoples who are not only very similar culturally and genetically. It also would be a grouping of two equals for the benefit of both.
>>It's unlikely that British (or American) public opinion would have been prepared to accept all-out war in the island, it's also unlikely Britain (by then running the Empire at aloss and recovering from WW1) would have the economic wherewithall to sustain it.<<
Doesn't stand up I'm afraid. Britain may well have been taxed to keep Ireland down, but to suggest it would have somehow disrupted her economy to do so is a gross exaggeration. If anything it would have employed 50,000 ex-soldiers. And American public opinion has never played that much at Whitehall.
was of the opinion that there was around a million Unionists in the north of Ireland.
It's one of my bugbears this. I don't think it is possible to collectively speak about a Unionist (or nationalist) people- Unionism and nationalism are political philosophies not ethnic identities. People who vote for the Union to continue number about 350,000, I guess there may be quite a few more "passive" Unionists but there's no way of measuring them, all we know for certain, there's about a third of a million Unionists in NI.
Apart from bigotry there are no disadvantages of any note worth mentioning, plenty of positives.
Interesting comment, it is a purely hypothetical situation of course!
Doesn't stand up I'm afraid. Britain may well have been taxed to keep Ireland down, but to suggest it would have somehow disrupted her economy to do so is a gross exaggeration. If anything it would have employed 50,000 ex-soldiers. And American public opinion has never played that much at Whitehall.
I've just finished Marr's book on post-war Britain; his argument is post WW1 Britain largely became the US's satellite (eg it was Wilson who pushed a lot of the treaties post WW1), so it shouldn't be underestimated. The Empire was becoming seriously stretched in India and beyond also in the early 1920s, Ireland really did not offer that much economically in the same way other parts did, so the removal of troops from there to other territories would have made economic and military sense.
>>Interesting comment, it is a purely hypothetical situation of course!<<
Also one that has been least explored, yet might just solve several issues at once.
I take all the economic issues into account, but i believe that the British could have suppressed Ireland without any major backlash from any front. Sure she might have plenty of low level activity causing casualties. The odd success from an IRA flying coloumn that had not been totally wiped out. Most probably her soldiers would commit the odd atrocity or ten to further blacken her name. Still she could have done it if there was not a political will to get rid.
Post a Comment