Illuminati-R-Us

Wee Nicola puts the case for another referendum, which Boris rejects because EU control bad, Westminster control good.

Heid the Ba wrote:Wee Nicola puts the case for another referendum, which Boris rejects because EU control bad, Westminster control good.

That's the general problem of these arguments about independence, claiming one's sovereignty, etc.

Decisions affecting the UK should be made by British politicians, not EU bureaucrats. OK, if you feel that way, should decisions affecting Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (and if you want to include it here, England as well) be made by Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish (and English) politicians instead of UK bureaucrats?

But why stop there? Should the individual counties be sovereign? How about each little town? Perhaps every street should have sovereignty over itself? Every house?

We're not going to live in a world where every individual is sovereign, seven billion micro nations. We're also not going to live in a world where there is a single global government. But there are all kinds of solutions in between, all of which involve individuals surrendering their sovereignty to some collective unit. But all these arguments about independence based on "self-determination" neatly sidestep the question of which size units get to self determine, and which have to be part of the collective - again, we're not going to have every individual self-determine their destiny.

That said, I'm rooting for Scottish independence. Last time around, I thought, it's not my business, what people there want to do, it's up to them, I don't care one way or another. I'm definitely rooting for it now though.

The UK is supposed to be a union of already existing countries though, so it’s not really making any new countries based on territory or anything like that. It’s splitting up a union where one partner can outvote and totally control the others, no matter how against their interests it is.

Lianachan wrote:The UK is supposed to be a union of already existing countries though, so it’s not really making any new countries based on territory or anything like that. It’s splitting up a union where one partner can outvote and totally control the others, no matter how against their interests it is.

Certainly Scotland was a well-defined entity for a long time prior to union, that is clear.

Northern Ireland was not, and I understand this is how both unionists and nationalists are able to claim they support self-determination; the nationalists claim it applies on an all-Ireland basis, the unionists claim it applies in a more regional basis.

I don’t know enough about Wales to say much.

If Wales wanted to be independent they should have fought harder in the thirteenth century.

Heid the Ba wrote:If Wales wanted to be independent they should have fought harder in the thirteenth century.

Oh, they like their independence...from the evil EU, of course.

While taking a disproportionately high share of EU money, of course.

Oh, don't you ever worry, party-pooper. Boris will foot tve bill, because he said he would, righ? Right?

Heid the Ba wrote:If Wales wanted to be independent they should have fought harder in the thirteenth century.

We fought the fuckers off in thirteenth century, but it didn’t ultimately do us any good.

Lianachan wrote:

Heid the Ba wrote:If Wales wanted to be independent they should have fought harder in the thirteenth century.

We fought the fuckers off in thirteenth century, but it didn’t ultimately do us any good.

I just took a class at Google U.

It sounds like the Parliament of Scotland, that approved the union with England (and Wales?) in 1707, was hardly what we would consider a representative body in the modern sense.

Well, while typing this post, I took a second class at Google U., and found this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707

Under "Scottish Perspective", it is argued that the union with England was largely driven by the individual financial interests of the commissioners who negotiated the union, and was distinctly unpopular in Scotland at the time. (The article is a little bit vague on how such an unpopular act was passed through parliament.)

I had been wondering why Scotland agreed to become part of a unitary state with a much larger partner, instead of joining some sort of federation, like the United States less than one hundred years later. But the story told by this article, of a treaty essentially secured by bribery rather than popular support, might help answer that one.

Is all of this accurate? Comments?

Yup, that’s about it. Secured by bribery and blackmail. The general population, who didn’t get a say, responded by rioting extensively. A key factor in the Jacobite uprisings of the 18th C was the desire to revoke the union. This isn’t often discussed, but there are surviving swords with “no union” engraved on them, for example.

Lianachan wrote:Yup, that’s about it. Secured by bribery and blackmail. The general population, who didn’t get a say, responded by rioting extensively. A key factor in the Jacobite uprisings of the 18th C was the desire to revoke the union. This isn’t often discussed, but there are surviving swords with “no union” engraved on them, for example.

I also found something saying there was a more or less forced union during the Cromwell era, but that this ended with the commonwealth.

Yeah, sort of and briefly. Also forced and deeply unpopular. It ended with the restoration of the monarchy.

Followed by The Killing Times. It took a while to settle down.

I'm trying to work through how a second referendum might be able to take place.

The current situation is that there was already a referendum, and independence lost. The prime minister (and I guess much of his party? much of labour also?) take the position that this was a "once in a generation" referendum, and its outcome must be respected. The position of Nicola Sturgeon is that the UK withdrawal from the EU is a material change of circumstances that invalidates the first referendum.

So, how could a referendum take place? There is the political process, or one can take to the streets. I don't imagine there is much appetite for street violence to bring about Scottish independence - is there?

So if it is confined to the political process, then how could this happen? Scotland have 59 seats in parliament, out of 650, so not quite 10%, but still a lot. Most of them (47) are currently held by the Scottish National Party, which campaigns on Scottish independence, and took 45% of the vote in 2019.

So, in the next general election (when?), suppose the result were neither a conservative nor a labour majority, and they weren't close enough that these DUP or other goofy little parties could put them over the top. If the SNP were to offer to join a coalition with either the conservatives or the labourites, whoever promises a second referendum (or independence without a referendum), would that offer be accepted by either party? Would there be sufficient support for this tactic that the SNP would get most of the seats in Scotland? (I don't imagine they'll get any seats outside of Scotland.) It might seem odd to be willing to join either the conservative or Labour Party in a coalition, but if your objective is independence, then who cares what policies will be enacted in the country you are leaving?

I did some checking, and it looks like something like this happened in Ireland in the 1910 election, but the outcome was ultimately a combination of partition/independence by a different mechanism, due to the outbreak of war in 1914 and violent opposition in Northern Ireland.

I came across this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_state

It states that England and Wales are "Christian States". Scotland, however, does not seem to be, although it does have a "national church".

Not sure about Northern Ireland.

I was a bit surprised by this.

The Anglian Church in England is established with Wee Betty as it's head whereas the Church of Scotland is strongly Presbyterian with no authority above the parish. There is a General Assembly but as far as I am aware any decisions there aren't binding on individual kirks.