Freedom! Och Aye the noo.....

[tibilicus]

I feel very strongly about this.

First of all, lets talk Salmond. The man is a good politician, he knows how to build an image and play the system. he is however opportunistic, wanting independence for his own gain and to boost his ego further as "the man who freed Scotland". Mutual union with England has brought great benefit to Scotland. it provided stability in which an enlightenment flourished, Scotland grew, and economic stability was brought to to this island of ours. Salmond's idea of a Scottish identity is false. His concept is based on a Catholic, nationalist view bolstered by main stream support due to his liberal views and anti-English rhetoric. Countries go to war with themselves to preserve territorial integrity and am I supposed to just accept the destruction of my national identity. The reality Scottish independence would destroy my nationality. It would also be a huge security risk. If Scotland goes the Sinn Fein crowed will kick of causing bloodshed and further disintegration. Within a decade, perhaps minus Wales, the union would have crumbled and we will all be worse off, thanks to one man peddling his selfish vision.

I can say that if Scotland goes I will go. I will refuse to live in "England". I'm not English I'm British. If I'm in the forces at that point I'll see my contract our and quit. I wont defend England, I care not for England, I care for Britain. I would rather create a new national identity for myself in some other Anglo country, I Canada's nice than sit down and accept the destruction of my own.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I feel very strongly about this.

First of all, lets talk Salmond. The man is a good politician, he knows how to build an image and play the system. he is however opportunistic, wanting independence for his own gain and to boost his ego further as "the man who freed Scotland". Mutual union with England has brought great benefit to Scotland. it provided stability in which an enlightenment flourished, Scotland grew, and economic stability was brought to to this island of ours. Salmond's idea of a Scottish identity is false. His concept is based on a Catholic, nationalist view bolstered by main stream support due to his liberal views and anti-English rhetoric. Countries go to war with themselves to preserve territorial integrity and am I supposed to just accept the destruction of my national identity. The reality Scottish independence would destroy my nationality. It would also be a huge security risk. If Scotland goes the Sinn Fein crowed will kick of causing bloodshed and further disintegration. Within a decade, perhaps minus Wales, the union would have crumbled and we will all be worse off, thanks to one man peddling his selfish vision.

I can say that if Scotland goes I will go. I will refuse to live in "England". I'm not English I'm British. If I'm in the forces at that point I'll see my contract our and quit. I wont defend England, I care not for England, I care for Britain. I would rather create a new national identity for myself in some other Anglo country, I Canada's nice than sit down and accept the destruction of my own.

You just became my new hero! Everything you said is absolutely spot on, well done for seeing beyond the framework that both nationalists and mainstraeam unionists have created for this debate.

I also will refuse to be part of any country that springs up should Britain fall apart. I will not vote in its elections or support its institutions, and I am livid every time I hear Mr. Salmond talk about the "will of the Scottish people" and things to that effect, as if he can talk on my behalf!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I feel very strongly about this.

First of all, lets talk Salmond. The man is a good politician, he knows how to build an image and play the system. he is however opportunistic, wanting independence for his own gain and to boost his ego further as "the man who freed Scotland". Mutual union with England has brought great benefit to Scotland. it provided stability in which an enlightenment flourished, Scotland grew, and economic stability was brought to to this island of ours. Salmond's idea of a Scottish identity is false. His concept is based on a Catholic, nationalist view bolstered by main stream support due to his liberal views and anti-English rhetoric. Countries go to war with themselves to preserve territorial integrity and am I supposed to just accept the destruction of my national identity. The reality Scottish independence would destroy my nationality. It would also be a huge security risk. If Scotland goes the Sinn Fein crowed will kick of causing bloodshed and further disintegration. Within a decade, perhaps minus Wales, the union would have crumbled and we will all be worse off, thanks to one man peddling his selfish vision.

I can say that if Scotland goes I will go. I will refuse to live in "England". I'm not English I'm British. If I'm in the forces at that point I'll see my contract our and quit. I wont defend England, I care not for England, I care for Britain. I would rather create a new national identity for myself in some other Anglo country, I Canada's nice than sit down and accept the destruction of my own.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I have an inkling it has to do with the Indian flag in your sig.

I am English, whilst also being part-Swedish and part-Welsh. If you were to push me though, I would say I was "West Saxon" because that is where my family lives, and where they have come from - from the rolling hills of Devon and the bleak moors to the chalk downs of Hampshire and the wide fields in Surrey. There are places I can go in the South of England where my ancestors litterally helped build the churches, the railways and the towns. I have nothing like that in Scotland, or even the North of England and as a "Southerner" I have observed no better opinion than tollerence of my English identity from Northerners, Scots, Welsh or Irish - casual hostility or outright racism are far more common and these mostly from people who choose to live in England.

So, ultimately, while I do not want to see the breakup of the United Kingdom I am not going to vest my identity in it. After all, the Commonwealth is already a ragged ruin, even Australia agitates for complete independce, and the UK began to disintegrate in the 1910's when Ireland rose up and the 26 Counties subsequently achieved independence.

[Greyblades]

I honestly don't know why Scotland would want to leave the union, I mean what's Scotland on its own? Seriously in the UK Scotland share the large influence the name Britain holds over the political world and still has a degree of self government, heck a scotsman can become leader of the fifth most powerful country in the world without having spend half thier lives applying for citizenship. I don't know what Salmond expect to gain from this, even his own meager position would lose importance outside of the Union. On thier own, Scotland would probably end up just another EU hanger on like Ireland, benefiting but not powerful enough on thier own to make a bit of difference in European policy. You think France and Germany would gives a toss what a "liberated" sicily would have to say about the Euro?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am English, whilst also being part-Swedish and part-Welsh. If you were to push me though, I would say I was "West Saxon" because that is where my family lives, and where they have come from - from the rolling hills of Devon and the bleak moors to the chalk downs of Hampshire and the wide fields in Surrey. There are places I can go in the South of England where my ancestors litterally helped build the churches, the railways and the towns. I have nothing like that in Scotland, or even the North of England and as a "Southerner" I have observed no better opinion than tollerence of my English identity from Northerners, Scots, Welsh or Irish - casual hostility or outright racism are far more common and these mostly from people who choose to live in England.

I have a particular connection to my local area as well. But every time you pick up a book to read up on your history, its British history you see - that's got to mean something.

Medieval Scotland was more Anglicised than England itself. By the 17th century England had a Scotsman on the throne. The 'Scots' language developed in northern England. And yet 18th century Scots was closer to Shakespearean English than the English of the same time period. Union was originally a Scottish vision, yet it was first enforced by an Englishman. William Wallace's family were Welsh immigrants. The place names of north-east Scotland could easily pass for Welsh. Half the population of Northern Ireland is basically a forging of English and Scots peoples. The very term 'British' was first used to apply to a population group when the Scots Gaels of Clan Campbell appealed to the King to refer to the settlers in Ulster as such.

The fact is, even before there was a British nation, we all share a British history. If anything, there is far less diversity in the history of the component parts of the UK when compared to the component regions of France, Italy, Germany etc that would never contest the fact that they have a shared history.

It's all very well to talk about the finer points of how independence will affect Scotland in terms of oil revenue, EU membership, any possible currency changes etc. But the fact is that what really matters is a shared history. That is the reason I can look at the people around me and say - yes, I have something in common with these people, I share a similar identity and values, and I want to take part in their government and institutions.

Now, I can say that I feel this with Britain. Or at least, my concept of Britishness. But I can't say the same with Mr. Salmond's idea of Scottishness.

[naut]

I can say that if Scotland goes I will go. I will refuse to live in "England". I'm not English I'm British. If I'm in the forces at that point I'll see my contract our and quit. I wont defend England, I care not for England, I care for Britain. I would rather create a new national identity for myself in some other Anglo country, I Canada's nice than sit down and accept the destruction of my own.

Despite your location set to "England". Heh.

[Papewaio]

Meh go for a federated model. All the former countries become states and have localized responsibility for education and health whilst the federal government can focus on tax, defense and external diplomacy.

Mind you I'm part Welsh, Swedish with Scot, Irish and English via New Zealand... Living in Australia.

[tibilicus]

Despite your location set to "England". Heh.

I don't think I've changed my "location" on these forums since I was a wee scamp. Funnily enough I didn't think about future political ramifications or concepts of national identity when I was 14..

+ England is a location, its technically a region within the UK. If I put down "Hull" (thank God I don't actually live in Hull) as my location it doesn't mean I advocate independence for the North East.

I'm not sure what to make of this, but I have an inkling it has to do with the Indian flag in your sig.



So, ultimately, while I do not want to see the breakup of the United Kingdom I am not going to vest my identity in it. After all, the Commonwealth is already a ragged ruin, even Australia agitates for complete independce, and the UK began to disintegrate in the 1910's when Ireland rose up and the 26 Counties subsequently achieved independence.

It depends what you think my flag means. It's in my sig to refer to my ancestry. My grandfathers side of the family were Anglo-Indians. He was born in Karachi to the son of an Anglo-Indian working for imperial tobacco. He served in the Indian army and would tell me wonderful stories of his time their. Although I never have visited when I have the money I plan to. I had about three generations of my family in India and if I traced my tree I could still find relatives from my great-grandmothers side of the family. I still think if independence didn't happen the family would still be in India. Surprisingly my grandfather was actually very supportive of Indian independence. He understood the Indian culture very well and was troubled by the British partitioning India, he always said it wasn't the right thing to do. I beleive I still have his photos somewhere with a picture under the Indian flag in which he annotated as "free India".

Anyway, despite my ramblings, I guess I've kind of supported my own argument. India was part of the empire as Australia was part of the commonwealth.
But the Scots, they've sat in parliament, ruled the throne and conquered the world in the name of Britannia. Salmond's view genuinely appalls me. Were the Scots some how coerced into Union or did they join for mutual benefit? Which seems more likely? I understand your view but I don't understand the logic you've linked to it. The commonwealth was a lose organisation of countries with British heritage. The UK is a sovereign nation made up of composing nations who have a shared history of roughly 1000 years. It's easy for Salmond to say Scotland's identity is distinct yet he doesn't acknowledge a superior over-arching British identity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think I've changed my "location" on these forums since I was a wee scamp. Funnily enough I didn't think about future political ramifications or concepts of national identity when I was 14..

+ England is a location, its technically a region within the UK. If I put down "Hull" (thank God I don't actually live in Hull) as my location it doesn't mean I advocate independence for the North East.

"Technically" England is a Kingdom, Scotland is a Kingdom, Northern Ireland is a Kingdom, and Wales is a Principality who's Soveriegn Prince is a vassal of the Queen of England. Than Mann is an independant Lordship.....etc. Describing England as a "region" is however completely wrong, Mercia is a region within England, as is Wessex, because they are only loosly and geographically defined. England, however, like the other Kingdoms etc., is very specifically defined and there is a "Queen of England" seperate from a Queen of Scotland, the fact that the two kingdoms are in a political union is peculiar which is why it is the topic of discussion.

Rhy may be a Unionist but I suspect even he would bristle if you described Scotland as a "region" of the UK, though in that case "province" might be more accurate and that would not go down over-well either.

It depends what you think my flag means. It's in my sig to refer to my ancestry. My grandfathers side of the family were Anglo-Indians. He was born in Karachi to the son of an Anglo-Indian working for imperial tobacco. He served in the Indian army and would tell me wonderful stories of his time their. Although I never have visited when I have the money I plan to. I had about three generations of my family in India and if I traced my tree I could still find relatives from my great-grandmothers side of the family. I still think if independence didn't happen the family would still be in India. Surprisingly my grandfather was actually very supportive of Indian independence. He understood the Indian culture very well and was troubled by the British partitioning India, he always said it wasn't the right thing to do. I beleive I still have his photos somewhere with a picture under the Indian flag in which he annotated as "free India".

As opposed to my Great Grandfather, who was a Royal Engineer and helped build the Indian Railway but then came home to his wife and children to the Pub in Alton. That's the difference between us, then, wherever else they have gone my family has always been "from" here, and "here" has been mostly England. The sole exceptions being my Anglo-Swedish father's family emigrated (my great grandfather Henric lived here during the war anyway) and the Welsh cattle drover who left Wales and decided England was a better bet.

On the other hand, I suppose your identity makes more sense if it is more expansive, that's fine but it's typical of "Brits" who came "home" after the Empire fell, because out there Brtish was as complex as it got. Back here the issues have not become more simple.

Anyway, despite my ramblings, I guess I've kind of supported my own argument. India was part of the empire as Australia was part of the commonwealth.
But the Scots, they've sat in parliament, ruled the throne and conquered the world in the name of Britannia. Salmond's view genuinely appalls me. Were the Scots some how coerced into Union or did they join for mutual benefit? Which seems more likely? I understand your view but I don't understand the logic you've linked to it. The commonwealth was a lose organisation of countries with British heritage. The UK is a sovereign nation made up of composing nations who have a shared history of roughly 1000 years. It's easy for Salmond to say Scotland's identity is distinct yet he doesn't acknowledge a superior over-arching British identity.

Ah, but "Australians" and probably Anglo-Indians, et al., served in parliament in the 19th Century, moved unhindered throughout the Empire and administered parts of it; Governor Generals came from the UK and the first Prime Minister of Canada was a Scot.

If you can seperate out the Commonwealth into individual nations, as we have done, don't suppose you can't seperate Scotland and England.

[tibilicus]

"Technically" England is a Kingdom, Scotland is a Kingdom, Northern Ireland is a Kingdom, and Wales is a Principality who's Soveriegn Prince is a vassal of the Queen of England. Than Mann is an independant Lordship.....etc. Describing England as a "region" is however completely wrong, Mercia is a region within England, as is Wessex, because they are only loosly and geographically defined. England, however, like the other Kingdoms etc., is very specifically defined and there is a "Queen of England" seperate from a Queen of Scotland, the fact that the two kingdoms are in a political union is peculiar which is why it is the topic of discussion.

Rhy may be a Unionist but I suspect even he would bristle if you described Scotland as a "region" of the UK, though in that case "province" might be more accurate and that would not go down over-well either.

Perhaps so. They may be individual kingdoms but they share the same laws, same institutions and same over-arching British identity. Theres a bigger difference between a Texan than a New Englander and yet they've accommodated themselves within the USA. What distinct features is it you feel separate the English from the Scots and the Scots from the Northern Irish? Is nearly half a millennium of shared heritage and culture not enough to build a binding national identity?

On the other hand, I suppose your identity makes more sense if it is more expansive, that's fine but it's typical of "Brits" who came "home" after the Empire fell, because out there Brtish was as complex as it got. Back here the issues have not become more simple.



Ah, but "Australians" and probably Anglo-Indians, et al., served in parliament in the 19th Century, moved unhindered throughout the Empire and administered parts of it; Governor Generals came from the UK and the first Prime Minister of Canada was a Scot.

I have to disagree. Out there being British wasn't as complex as it got. If that was the case when my grandad came home I highly doubt he would of have received the problems he did. he was turned down for numerous jobs for being a "paki" and not quite like everyone else, despite the fact he was pretty much white. Hence the reason he went from managing an entire production site to only being able to find work as a porter. I don't think true Anglo-Indians would have served in parliament either. Lord Curzon and Lord Mountbatten may have been governors of the Raj but they were hardly Anglo-Indians. They were British lords put over the Raj's affairs.

If you can seperate out the Commonwealth into individual nations, as we have done, don't suppose you can't seperate Scotland and England.

And Spain could let Catalan and the Basque region go and Canada could let Quebec go. Do you not think there's a reason those nations fight to keep them though. Are they better off without them or better off with them. Why would the Spanish and the Canadian's want to sacrifice a shared history for autonomy which makes everyone poorer. At the rate we're going they'll be over 400 nation states by the end of the century with London finally fulfilling its dream of breaking away from the UK to form its glorious haven of banking.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why would the Spanish and the Canadian's want to sacrifice a shared history for autonomy which makes everyone poorer.

Because Scotland was a nation that signed a union and therefore they should have the right to unsign. (I am sure our American friends would love such a precendent in international law)

Looking from the outside it says a lot about Britishness that it cannot defend itself, instead the debate is all bout genetics as per the Neo-Unionists or worrying about the "Greatness" of the country etc etc.

Ye cant have it both ways either your allowed to negotitate new treaties with the people concerned or your an autocracy, if the UK can agitate for powers back from the EU then Scotland can do the same.

It is no longer a Union signed in good faith if it must be maintained by refusing to let it go, let it stand for itself or not at all.

And after all that craic the vote is likely to fail anyway, so whats is the big fuss about??




Plus if you a Tory you should be out acting all perfidious to get the Scots to vote yes, it would instantly cut the legs from under the left.

it could take them a generation or more to recover the loss of Scottish labour seats.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhy may be a Unionist but I suspect even he would bristle if you described Scotland as a "region" of the UK, though in that case "province" might be more accurate and that would not go down over-well either.

I prefer the term 'northern Britain'.

Also like I said I prefer 'loyalist' over 'unionist (small 'u' remember), because I don't think of Britain as a union of two (or more) nations, and I am loyal to the British government, British institutions, and above all the concept of the British nation itself.

Because Scotland was a nation that signed a union and therefore they should have the right to unsign. (I am sure our American friends would love such a precendent in international law)

Scotland was not a nation, it was a feudal kingdom. And I don't see how internation law can come into it given that the Union happened before any (modern) concept of international law existed. Surely all the other historic kingdoms that were annexed by larger powers and currently want independence would have more of a right to seceed given they were subjected purely by brute force?

Looking from the outside it says a lot about Britishness that it cannot defend itself, instead the debate is all bout genetics as per the Neo-Unionists or worrying about the "Greatness" of the country etc etc.

Indeed, this may well be the downfall of the British nation. I have always said that mainstream 'unionists' lost the battle when they held the debate on nationalist rhetoric and terms. Devolution was supposed to compromise with the nationalists, but I always said it just gives legitimacy to Scottish nationhood. As does the fact that mainstream unionists continue to talk of themselves as being "proudly Scottish", and talking of the "Scottish people" having a collective sovereignty.

Ye cant have it both ways either your allowed to negotitate new treaties with the people concerned or your an autocracy, if the UK can agitate for powers back from the EU then Scotland can do the same.

You can't compare the relationship of a sovereign state within an international organisation to that of a component region within a sovereign state.

It is no longer a Union signed in good faith if it must be maintained by refusing to let it go, let it stand for itself or not at all.

Well tbh it wasn't really ever signed in good faith and was in fact widely opposed in Scotland. Although that was more because of the terms of the union itself, just a few decades ago the Scots had of course went to the trouble of holding the English king ransom in order to enforce their own idea of union (which was actually a much fuller union that would have saw the two national churches united as well).

And after all that craic the vote is likely to fail anyway, so whats is the big fuss about??

There's a good chance it could succeed, and public opinion is shifting ever in favour of it, especially with younger generations. Salmond actually wanted to get all 16+ voting in the referendum although it looks like he's given up on that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Perhaps so. They may be individual kingdoms but they share the same laws, same institutions and same over-arching British identity. Theres a bigger difference between a Texan than a New Englander and yet they've accommodated themselves within the USA. What distinct features is it you feel separate the English from the Scots and the Scots from the Northern Irish? Is nearly half a millennium of shared heritage and culture not enough to build a binding national identity?

No, half a millenium is not long enough, over a millenium of coexistence has not smoothed the differences between the AEngelish and the Danelaw. The current North-South divide is the same one as between "Dane and "Saxon" since the time of Athelstan, and being North of the line STILL means you are disenfranchised. As to shared laws and institutions; England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have seperate legal codes (and currencies) and even Wales has a different system of local government to England.

I have to disagree. Out there being British wasn't as complex as it got. If that was the case when my grandad came home I highly doubt he would of have received the problems he did. he was turned down for numerous jobs for being a "paki" and not quite like everyone else, despite the fact he was pretty much white. Hence the reason he went from managing an entire production site to only being able to find work as a porter. I don't think true Anglo-Indians would have served in parliament either. Lord Curzon and Lord Mountbatten may have been governors of the Raj but they were hardly Anglo-Indians. They were British lords put over the Raj's affairs.

So you mean Anglo-Indian as in "part British part Indian" (a point, does Anglo-Indian covers Scots-Indians as well?) rather than as, "British but born in India". Rudyard Kipling was "Anglo-Indian" in the latter sense, which was what I assumed you meant because you were talking about your grandfather.

And Spain could let Catalan and the Basque region go and Canada could let Quebec go. Do you not think there's a reason those nations fight to keep them though. Are they better off without them or better off with them. Why would the Spanish and the Canadian's want to sacrifice a shared history for autonomy which makes everyone poorer. At the rate we're going they'll be over 400 nation states by the end of the century with London finally fulfilling its dream of breaking away from the UK to form its glorious haven of banking.

Well, Great Britain let go of the Canada and Australia, you used to be able to use Australian notes in the UK just like Scots ones, and "British Subject" included English, Scots, Canadians and Australians among others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject

All that has now passed into dust of history, so to assume that the UK is in some way organic is absurd, it reamins together only by common consent, and the consent is cracking.