“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. I don’t think we’d ever succeed in saving the Union by frightening Scots to say you couldn’t possibly make it on your own. That’s not the way I approach it. The Union to me is about generosity – we’re stronger together because we share so much together. I think we’ll win it. We’ll win the case for the Union through taking a generous attitude rather than a small-minded one.”Jeff sees what he characterises as Cameron’s admission that Scotland could become an independent state as “progress” and as “one of the main turning points” in what he presumably imagines to be a “path” toward Scottish separation from the rest of the United Kingdom.
And elsewhere in the blogosphere, nationalist North Britain wonders if “the Unionist argument” is “finally maturing”, and assorted Scotsman and Herald CyberNats claim that “the truth emerges eventually”, posture along the lines that it is “refreshing to hear a unionist telling the truth” and pretend that Cameron’s comments represent “a HUGE admission by the Tories”.
But they don’t. Cameron’s remarks are nothing new, either for the Conservatives or for Labour. For example, here’s the Tories’ Scotland spokesman, David Mundell, writing earlier this month:
“Recent events have been a reality check for the independence talk that we’ve heard over recent years. There is still no doubt that Scotland could go it alone but the reality is that we would be at the mercy of global events.”And although after a few minutes googling I failed to locate a direct quotation, here is a Herald piece which mentions Tony Blair “conceding that Scotland could be independent” and a Daily Record article which reports him saying that “of course” Scotland could be come independent.
So if Cameron’s remarks don’t represent a new departure for either party, where is the balance between “positive” and “negative” to be found? Here’s a useful overview by Michael Gove, Shadow Secretary of State for Children, writing in the Scotsman:
“Most of us who are Unionists support the Union because we think Scotland’s strengths complement those of other parts of the UK. The relationship works to everyone’s benefit. It’s a positive message, rooted in a belief that co-operation, not division, is the way to advance. But positive as the vision is, the reality of darker times only makes the argument for the Union more powerful.”
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.
We have similar arguments to the west of Offa's Dyke in Wales, Nationalists that try to convince the gullible that a great prejudice is used against smaller sections of society by Parliament in Westminster, balderdash.
Scotland is not outvoted by a factor of 11-1, the Scottish members of Parliament vote with or against propositions. I haven't mentioned a disproportionate presence of Scottish MPs in government, because it doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is "Democracy" continuing to work.
Joe Middleton: I’ve answered you here.
Well said, Stonemason.
The depth of Union with England is as questionable now, as in the 1980's. Thatcher's 'one nation conservatism' alienated Scotland as much as Brown's one-nation conservatism(??) does now. Ironically, the majority party in Scotland then was unionist, only they weren't so overt about it in those days. Times and political parties change, but still Scotland is different.
Please don't make a comparison with NE England, or some other 'region'. Scotland is not a region.
"Please don't make a comparison with NE England, or some other 'region'. Scotland is not a region."
Scotland most certainly is a region. For one, it's a European parliamentary electoral region in law, and for another it satisfies any dictionary definition of a region that you'd care to consult.
However this notion that it somehow better than a region and should be given special treatment is, I believe, simple cultural snobbery and downright prejudice. In short, what Niall Ferguson called the Scottish Swagger.
DG
The Union of 1707 was one of a Union of two countries. Countries, not regions. Your argument would assume that England is a region also.
By the way, Scotland already has special treatment. It's called devolution. Snobbish or what?
DG
Scotland "The Region"
Wikipedeia:
"Scotland /ˈskɒtlənd/ (help·info) (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in northwest Europe[5][6][7] that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain."
BBC & UN 2005:
"Scotland has been named the most violent country in the developed world by a United Nations report".
I can't agree, DG. Scotland is a country, while at the same time being a European parliamentary constituency/region/call it what you will. But on the other hand, I can't understand why Andrew would feel that Scotland's nationhood was being tacitly denied if some comparison or other with a region of England was made.
Ah, I have had some fun with this one at the Hootsmon earlier this week.
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that Scotland is not a state. (Although one of my more loopy adversaries does not accept this, argues that Scotland is a "kingdom nation state" (whatever that is) and thinks he/she lives in something called "the United Kingdoms of Greater Britain and Northern Ireland". Sigh.)
One of the fundamental Nat arguments is that "Scotland is a nation (or country), and independence is normal for nations / countries".
To which can be replied "Multi-entity unions are normal too: the USA, Germany, Spain, India, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, etc."
The Nat cry then is "Aha! But those are unions of States / provinces / regions, not countries".
Of course there is no set definition of what a region or country is, and no real objective way to distinguish "Scotland" from Bavaria, Catalonia, Maharashtra or Massachusetts. This tends to outrage Nats and leads to the usual tirades about disrespecting Scotland and being a lickspittle traitorous Quisling, etc etc.
In fact, of course, insisting that Scotland is somehow uniquely special is rather disrespectful to many of these other places, isn't it? And when you probe the argument, it all leads down to that rather nasty Blut-und-Boden worldview which we have come to know so well.
sm753
I thought Bismarck was a unionist myself.
Uniting Greater Germany at the expense of Denmark, France and Austria.
And we all ken where that led to eh?
Possibly also at the expense of Bavaria, Hanover, Saxony, Wurttemberg and others - all of which are screaming for independence from Germany today.
Aren't they?
sm753
It's OK to live in a country that has formed a Union with another country. Scotland and England are unique in that respect. Thanks for the endorsement SU. However sm, forgetting the BBC and Wiki for a second, would the UN classify Bavaria, Catalonia, Maharashtra, or Massachusetts as 'countries'? If so, I hold my hands up, but neither they nor Scotland should be compared to regions of England.
And yes, "independence is normal for nations / countries", if the people in that nation or country so wish. At the moment the jury's still out on Scotland.
Andrew Bod's post os typical of the arrogance which permeates SNP thinking. Why should the UN decide if Catalunayis a country. Why not ask the Catalans? This is reminiscent of the poster on the Herald who said we shouldn't compare Scotland to Iceland as that was a more suitable comparison for Wales or the Isle of Man. That's the SNP for you. Only interested in other countries when they can make spurious comparisons, ignoring their right to even be called a country when the comparisons are unhelpful and denigrating those countries smaller than Scotland.
Oh and considering that the advocates of independence have NEVER amassed more than one-third of the vote at ANY election for either Westminster or Holyrood the jury is far from out. Their verdict is delivered regularly at every election and that verdict is always the same.
scotleag
Firstly, you may feel safer when you stereotype posters into being with the 'SNP' or Unionist, but I'm afraid I've not quite made my mind up about independence yet.
Secondly, I didn't make the comparisons. I was responding to the examples given by sm753. But if you want me to make a comparison, from anyone's point of view, Salmond was dead wrong: Iceland has a population one-seventeenth the size of Scotland with only two main industries. What I will concede on my part is not arrogance, but ignorance. Among sm's examples, I believe Catalonia, after some research, to be in a similar position to Scotland, although the ERC (SNP equivalent) has a much smaller share of the vote than the Scottish nationalists. The other three examples are historical red herrings.
Thirdly, I think you'll find at every election, around 40% of people who vote SNP are quite happy with Scottish citizenship first, and British citizenship second. And amongst Labour voters, around a quarter see themselves as Scottish and not British at all. Independence is clearly not the main issue during General Elections. A referendum, as Wendy suggested, will sort that out.
(Source: http://www.scottishaffairs.org/onlinepub/sa/moreno_sa54_winter06.html)
Andrew BOD
"would the UN classify Bavaria, Catalonia, Maharashtra, or Massachusetts as 'countries'?"
I've had a quick fumble around the UN and can't find any recognition of Scotland as a "country" or "nation". Do you know of any?
andrew bod,
My apologies if I have offended you by labelling you as a nationalist. I can understand how upsetting that can be. But I stick by my point that your querying the rights of others to nationhood is typical of nat thinking. Even your response shows that - " I believe Catalonia, after some research, to be in a similar position to Scotland"
With all due respect what YOU think, I think or Uncle Tom Cobleigh thinks is immaterial. It is what the CATALANS think that is important.
Oh, and the ERC are NOT the SNP equivalent. Banding together with a ragbag collection of others in the European parliament to get group funding is one thing but to describe them as equivalent goes too far. The ERC are much more left-wing than the SNP, most of whose politicians would sit very comfortably within the CiU - the largest Catalan nationalist party. The ERC are also much more constructive than the SNP. For some years now they have been junior partners (along with the Greens) to the PSC (or Labour equivalent to use your terms) in the Generalitat.
In other words the ERC are not fundamentalists - independence or bust - like the SNP.
One wonder if you might consider the Basques and the Gallegos to form nations?
As for the others being "historical red herrings" perhaps you could care to elaborate. Do you mean there is a period of time after which people can no longer qualify for nationhood? I know little about Indian history but both Massachussetts & Bavaria exercised sovereign power long after the Act of Union in 1707. So maybe we aren't a nation after all? By your definition that is.
Scotleag.
Did I mention 'nations' or 'nationhood'?? I don't think so. I was merely asserting that Scotland was a country. On the subject though, Catalonia has indeed been recognised as having 'nation-status' within Spain. And yes, you're right: it is what those in Catalonia think that matters. The same should be afforded to those who live in Scotland, not just those on a hand-picked commission or a minority government.
The other three examples may have been states, nations or countries in the past, may well be in the future, but there has been no large minority or majority of people, in recent history, within these geographical areas, claiming independence. But again, that may change, and it's up to the people who live there that really matters.
Going back to my assertion...
A 'Country" (UN)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece
A 'Country' (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland
A 'Country" (Jack McConnell)
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20758/53606
A 'Country' (Annabel Goldie)
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/annabel_goldie_msp/
A 'Country' (Donald Dewar)
http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/aspect/lab/a99labgan.htm
A 'Country' (Wendy Alexander and Steven Purcell)
http://www.citybuildingglasgow.co.uk/?p=94
A 'Country' (Tavish Scott)
http://www.libdemvoice.org/tavish-scott-why-i-want-to-be-leader-of-the-scottish-liberal-democrats-3101.html
A 'Country' (Jim Murphy)
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/jim_murphy_blog
Whether you want a Scotland within the current UK set-up, a more autonomous Scotland still within the UK, or an independent Scotland, there is no denying Scotland is a country.
I'm glad you accept it's up to the Catalans, Bavarians etc to determine their national status. Refreshing when so many of a nationalist bent in Scotland seek to deny their right to do so or - worse - claim they never had any such right in the first place.
Scotland is actually in a better situation than either the Catalans or the Basques, living as we do in an enlightened liberal democracy which freely accepts the right of the people of Scotland to choose for themselves whatever constitutional arrangements we see fit.
In Spain - despite the amazing progress made in the post-Franco era - such rights are still denied by the Spanish state which only last week forbade the Basques from holding a referendum. And of course the right of secession from the USA was expressly outlawed after the Civil War there.
Isn't it wonderful that the much-maligned United Kingdom is one of the few countries in the world which is so relaxed at the prospect of its constituent parts breaking away that it feels no need to emulate Spain or the USA by legislating to forbid such an event?
Probably another reason why so many of us are comfortable with the present arrangements.
On and one more thing:
you ask: "Did I mention 'nations' or 'nationhood'?? I don't think so."
Short memory. Scroll back up the thread a bit to this:
"And yes, "independence is normal for nations / countries", if the people in that nation or country so wish"
"nations/countries." Your very words.
Andrew BOD
"A 'Country" (UN)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece"
No, no, no.
I do not dispute Scotland is a "country" or a "nation" (whatever those are).
I was interested to see if you had a reference to any sort of UN or international-law reference to the concept of "country" or "nation" (as opposed to "state", which is well-defined), and/or which entities were recognised as such.
Your Times article will not do!
It is fun to get all rude and polemical about this stuff sometimes (who, me?), but I do have a genuine interest in the historical and constitutional aspects.
If someone could actually say "Scotland is a nation/country because of UN agreement XXX" rather than "because we sez so" I would be quite impressed.
The closest I have come is the Council of Europe convention-thingy on "national minorities"; however the UK's recognition of this is on the basis that we don't have any (only ethnic ones).
So any "official" definition / recognition of the concept of "nation / country" would be of interest.