Independent Voices (Love these)

Positive messages

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Anyway consider yourself ignored. May be if I'm interested in what a bigot has to say I'll unblock you.

While I tend towards the preservation of the Union (England, Scotland and Wales, that is), I can understand only too well that many people in a country with a strong liberal/ social democratic tradition might think they could be better off without being shackled to the various strands of unsuccessful and divisive neoliberalism with which England has saddled them over the past 30 years.

I think that those of us who want a social democratic UK need to win the argument, not shout at the opposition.

The Skin

There is a difference between the sort of nationalism that supports violence, and the sort that provides positive messages such as those in the OP.

I am myself for preservation of the Union, and against separation for Scotland; but to be honest, some of this may be pure selfishness as without Scotland and Wales, England would probably have a permanent Tory majority! In any case, ultimately the decision should IMO be up to Scotland, and decided by referendum, and their decision either way should be accepted.

As I reckon your worth a reply.

Starts by accepting that Scotland is a nation and a country within a political union that isn't working.

//England would probably have a permanent Tory majority!//

England voted in a Tory government, by MP numbers alone. Scotland you could argue robbed them only of a majority.

I'll try to do so in kind to yourself this weekend, as university deadlines for this coming Friday is fast approaching.

and there is an element of rather a 'social democratic Scotland than a Tory Britain'. You are getting closer as to why, it still leaves out that Scots did not vote in the current British government either. A Tory government with a mandate of one MP.

Just asking ?

I can put it in more detail this weekend. If you want, or just a few points

1) HBOS operational headquarters is in England

2) RBS operations in Scotland accounts for only 10% of their whole UK operations, and going on what happened in Europe where banks operated in different countries it fell to each country to bailout the operations where within their borders no matter where the brass plate sits.

3) Is there a reason why only two, out of these 6 "UK" banks which got bailed out, I keep hearing about only these two? Besides all these (RBS included) subsidiaries operated out of London.

with not only its registered office but its Head Office in Edinburgh.

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

Fred Goodwin the CEO took it to the edge of oblivion was a Scot. The British government bailed it ENTIRE world wide operation not just the bits that operated in the UK or even England. At the moment the bank is basically owned by HMG so who gets what going forward.

As for HBOS up until the time it was rescued by HMG it was most definitely run out of its corporate headquarters at the Mound in Edinburgh in Scotland. Just the low paid pen pushers, call centre staff and other grunts were in Halifax.

Although all British banks received some assistance in 2008 and 2009 only three were specifically rescued by the UK government either nationalising them or taking an active shareholding. One was the English Northern Rock but the other two HBOS and RBS were most definitely run and directed out of Edinburgh.

We both agreed that RBS is in Edinburgh so..
I look at your wiki link to see if it pointed out to "The British government bailed it ENTIRE world wide operation" and I couldn't find it, not surprisingly.

I simple google would show... Federal Reserve bailed out US operations linked to RBS.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/rbs-will-get-billions-in-us-bail-out-of-economy-1.826927

Also to highlight where governments have borrowed to bailout what operations that are within their borders. France, The Netherlands,Belgium and Luxembourg did joined forces to bailout Fortis and Dexia Banks.

RBS got most of its losses from operations out of London.

Only about 10% of RBS operations are in Scotland. Even with Scotland bailing out that 10% of RBS, it would be unthinkable that England would let 90% of RBS (a private company) English operations go to the wall resulting in damaging its economy.

HBOS operational head quarters are in Halifax they also have to share the blame.

would an independent Scotland, probably running on something of a shoestring, be able to bail out failing banks even as much as the UK would? Also, a few years ago the obvious answer to 'who would bail them out?' would have been 'the EU', as presumably an independent Scotland would still remain in the EU. With all that's happening in the Eurozone, it's increasingly less clear that the EU would continue to be able to.

This is not saying that Scottish banks are any more likely to fail than English ones; and in any case all large banks are pretty globalized by now. But I do think that independence at this time carries its risks.

was the tune to which the SNP were jigging not so long a go. Of course, the Eurozone currency crisis has rather complicated that matter. In addition the possible solution to the Euro problem being touted in Brussels is tighter fiscal and political integrattion. This would involve more spending and tax decisions being taken in Brussels rather than by national governments so the Scots might end up with their government policies simply being taken by bureaucrats in Brussels and poliicians in Paris and Berlin rather than London. They may well like to ask the Irish how amenable the Germans are in a debt crisis. No doubt Salmond will just start dancing to a slightly different tune as he is very good at shifting his ground while pretending to be follwing the same line.

full of exceptionalism, cute concern-ism (if its a word), borderline racism and ignorance. Numerous academics have been on record including Professor Hughes Hallet to Scotlands balance sheet would be, however a nation is more than a balance sheet.

I was not saying anything exceptionalist about Scotland - it was about the EU's situation in general. I think that it might be a more difficult situation for *any* new country in Europe, if the Eurozone crisis continues.

I tend to think that (to misquote an old American saying) while the UK may well *hang* together even if it hangs together, the different countries run a greater risk of all hanging separately. Other people's mileage may vary.

I think that if the Scottish referendum goes in favour of independence, it is England's duty to accept it. I hope it doesn't - but I am not one of those voting.

You could start by worrying about Trident weapons and where it could be put. Of the top of my head its either near Hull or the Thames


//England's duty to accept it.//

Even recently through 'Claim of Rights 1989' sovereignty lies with the Scottish people, under Scottish constitutional law, Its irrelevant if England accepts it.

highlighted beautifully below

"Sir: The Government tells us that the devolution White Paper "will make it clear that sovereignty will stay with the Westminster Parliament" ("Blair tells Scots to go it alone", 21 July).
The White Paper cannot do this. Sovereignty cannot stay where it has never been. This is not just a question of the sovereignty of the Scottish people. It is also a question of whether the Act of Union created a single sovereign state or a political union between two sovereign states.

The bulk of the text of the Act of Union rehearses things which the Westminster Parliament may not do. This is not a mark of a sovereign power. The Act of Union no more transferred Scottish sovereignty to London than the Treaty of Rome transferred it to Brussels. Any government attempt to change this would be a constitutional change so big that devolution would be trivial by comparison.

Earl RUSSELL

House of Lords

London SW1"



nor do I remember asking permission.

It should be scrapped. Thus, the location should be Nowhere!

And for the rest: you can't have it both ways. If you think that the status of Scotland is of 'no concern' to non-Scots, then why post about it on the UK forum? I had argued against others who thought you should not post about it here; but if you do, then you can't expect others not to respond.

But I will no longer respond to your posts, as you clearly don't want non-Scots to comment on them.

I'll say it. I don't care what your parentage 'is'. But its plain to see you'd never wish to form no part of Scotlands future.




As for Trident weapons no matter who's in power Westminster wants to keep them

She has not said anything that could possibly be called "borderline racism" anywhere in this thread (or, for that matter, on DU, ever). And I think the rest of your characterisation is uncalled for as well. It seems you don't actually want to hear any views on this that aren't pro-independence, and will just smear people rather than engaging them.

... to post nationalistic shit like that in the UNITED KINGDOM forum ...

:eyes:

Whether we like it or not, the ScotNats are, at this moment in time, a legitimate democratic party in the UK.

The Skin

It is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception" as George Orwell so memorably put it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Criticisms

None of us filthy sassenachs in it, just as the SNP prefer.

As to the OP, it's dishonest from the very 1st word. Elaine C Smith is nothing even vaguely approaching an "independent voice". She's a staunch SNP activist.

...and it's very far removed from the OP's party political broadcast.

... in a truly independent voice about Scottish independence, I suggest you start here.

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

It's almost like Elaine C. Smith is playing a parody of herself.
"All the stars will be there. And Hue and Cry!"

No problem with Scottish (or English or Welsh or Northern Irish) stuff
in the UK forum but when it is actively campaigning against the "United"
part of UK, it's somewhat hypocritical to put it here.

IMO, crap like the OP should stay in the General Drivel forum.

:shrug:

All UK issues, which include the desirability or otherwise of its dissolution, belong in here.

By your logic, supporting a united Ireland should be kept out of here too.

> All UK issues, which include the desirability or otherwise of its
> dissolution, belong in here.

Fair enough then. I thought it was more GD than UK but (obviously) some
other people disagree.

:shrug:


> By your logic, supporting a united Ireland should be kept out of here too.

Correct (unless you were meaning that Eire would want to become part of the UK ...)

:evilgrin:

if we had a whip round I think the English would be more than happy to oblige. I'd chip in €5. :evilgrin:

... so, even as a joke, that's wide of the mark.

As a contributor to this forum who's proud of the fact that his ancestors hail from all four countries of the British Isles and who respects the views and policies of the SNP and Plaid Cymru while disagreeing with them, can I respectfully point out that I'm alarmed by the tone of some of the contributions to this strand.

Perhaps one of the moderators could let me know if they think I'm being over-sensitive.

The Skin

T-i-B's original contribution was both unacceptable and out of character, and that probably helped to set a rather sour tone from the word go. As for the reference to Hadrian's Wall, I've heard Billy Connoly himself refer to it as the border on the edge of Roman civilisation, so it stands as a convenient short hand for the England/Scotland border, even if this is historically and geographically wrong.

One could argue that posting nationalist propaganda in a leftist/progressive forum could be seen as provocative, and it certainly seems to have put a few people's backs up.

It is obvious that if the Scots want independence they can have it. They came into the union for financial reasons (i.e. they were skint and needed the English to bail them out) and they have the right to leave it for whatever reason they choose. However, if they expect independence to solve all their problems, they could be in for a shock.

You rightly point out that we are a mongrel nation. Who among us could claim to be 100% English, Scottish, etc, even is we could define what that means? Even if Scotland got independence tomorrow it would be less than absolute. Their biggest trading partner would still be England and it's hard to see this interaction and interdependence ever ending.

Finally, the Scots shouldn't expect the English to respond to naked anti-Englishness with a shrug. We are a proud nation too (and, if you follow Scottish logic from 1967 we are the current world football champions), and don't take kindly to our supposed partners in the union openly braying for our national humiliation at every opportunity. If you can only measure your worth by how much you hate someone else, that is a sure sign of low self esteem.

.... and I look in vain for any naked anti-Englishness in that or any other of his contributions here. Perhaps you could help me with that. You might also like to clarify for me when Billy Connolly(sic)became the arbiter of geographical boundaries. Hadrian's Wall might be a useful device for music hall jokes about "Jocks" and "Sassenachs", but I thought that this was supposed to be a serious discussion.

And we English would all like to throw in a fiver to rebuild the wall, eh? Hey. let's make it a tenner apiece and we can build an electric fence at Dover to keep the other furrin enemies of Our Proud Nation out too.

"Nationalist propaganda?" Are you seriously suggesting that the SNP is an organization like the EDL? And as for the appropriateness of mentioning it on a leftist forum, I wish that ANY party currently organising in England would campaign on half of the social democratic agenda that the SNP have put into place in Scotland. That's why they win - not because all Scots are champing at the bit for independence.

I didn't say that we were a "mongrel nation," BTW. That's your phrase, and a rather ugly one IMHO. I pointed out that I personally was of mixed origin and that I was worried about the tone of some of the remarks here. I still am. And how does the suggestion that we're all mongrels square with "the English" being "a proud nation" too? BTW, I used to weary a little, when I lived further South, of my fellow Proud Nationals' incessant jokes about cloth caps, whippets and coal in the bath. Or maybe they thought I was Scottish.

Oh bugger. I was determined not to get angry but some of the comments here have really upset me.

Shocked and stunned I am. Shocked and stunned.

The Skin

... I don't think there's much point in continuing.

I wish you a nice evening.

The mind boggles at what you think the big things are!

But you're kind of right. If this forum is about "Britishness" as opposed to Englishness, Scottishness and Welshness, there isn't really much point in me posting here.

The Skin

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The clue is in the name. The Sottish NATIONAL Party, aka Scottish Nationalists. And I'm afraid that I can't really view Scottish Nationalism any differently to how I view the English Nationalism

Not really the EDL as they are a whole other level of nastiness but I have the same basic issues with a lot of what the English Democrats spout about an "English" parliament as I have with Scottish Nationalism.

I don't support it but surely it is? Just as Regional Assemblies were?

The Skin

would be based on the constitutional anomalies thrown up by Scottish & Welsh devolution.

I've just put on me nose peg and visited the English Democrats website and I have to say that a major motivation for their English Parliament policy appears to be spite towards the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, who they seem to view as a drain on the resources of England.

I don't subscribe to that view in the slightest and very strongly consider the United Kingdom as a whole to be greater then the sum of it's parts.

... who see an English parliament as a legitimate aspiration.

As you suggest, we progressives need to furnish the counter-argument.

The Skin

... I missed the first reply to this thread (the deleted one) but, with that
apparent exception, I don't see why there should be anything to "alarm" you.

:shrug:

I have English, Scottish & Irish ancestors and my wife's family is
solidly Welsh so I don't hold any grudge against any of the home nations.

That doesn't mean that I support the posting of propaganda from any of
the four nationalist parties (or their offshoots) and it was largely the
irony of seeing pro-secessionist posters in the United Kingdom forum that
triggered my initial comment - one that simply would not have been made
had the SNP bits been posted in General Discussion or any other general
purpose forum as I would have simply ignored it without comment. YMMV.

and a lot of very ill-informed posturing. Many DUers views of non-American politics are overly influenced by maudlin grandfathers with dubious tales about their ancestors.

The Skin

I have long been predicting possible Scottish secession on this board. However, I think it needs to be discussed in the language other than that of Braveheart or Hadrians Wall. The Scots are perfectly entitled to govern themselves as an independent nation if that is what they choose. What they are not entitled to do is to skip out of the Union leaving all the unpleasant legacies to the English and possibly the Welsh by pretending they had nothing to do with them. That applies to issues as varied as Ulster, through to the fall out from the break up of the British Empire right down to the recent banking crisis in which Scottish banks and Scottish financiers in some respects played just as big a role as the City of London.

And your questions were reasonable and legitimate. However I've seen a lot more anti-Scottish sentiment in this thread than I have anti-English.

And I think it ill behoves us as progressives to indulge in either.

The Skin

To a man with a hammer ...?

Having read through the entire (remaining) thread again (more deletions?),
I think you are seriously over-reacting with your "concern".

:shrug:

I disagree.

Fortunately so did the moderators, it seems, and the most excessive hate mail has been deleted.

The Skin

The reason there's no anti-English is simply because 'anti-English' has nothing to do with Scottish independence nor should it. It shows the lack of understanding of what Scottish independence means to the majority of us from your peers. As for Progressives I could believe your one, as for the rest what is deemed to be 'progressive' is nothing more than comfort words, how could progressives show that level of racism towards Scots and be progressive. Of course they'll say their derogatory comments are not racist, if anything that makes them more dangerous.