The Mod-Sanctioned Scottish Referendum Megathread

[Parti Ouvrier]

You joke but where will this lead? Independence for the Shetlands, because only they have a real claim to the oil, independence for London as a city state, London has all the money, ect. Personally, I don't like British nationalism, (NO side) nor Scottish nationalism, (yes) or any nationalism, eg, Ukrainian or Russian. And both nationalism's are pro-Nato, pro-Monarchy, ect.

Is it the nationalism or the word itself that you don't like? Because no nationalism in this world is identical. A lot of nationalism are opposed to imperialism.

1. Nationalism
2.Obviously
3. Oh yes, the anti-imperialism popular front method, where the working class aligns with the national bourgeoisie. Popular with the Stalinists, Maoists and neo-Trots. However, siding with Scottish nationalism is even worse, because Scotland is not being oppressed, nor is it being attacked or threatened militarily. in fact, Salmond is happy for Scotland to be part of Nato and said an independent Scotland would mean that the US would have two allies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27725439

[Parti Ouvrier]

perhaps we could have some form of nationalism and socialism. hmm.

Sounds terrific! I'd suggest finding some snazzy far eastern symbols to represent it as well!

But in all seriousness, I despair that they're putting national politics ahead of class politics.

Yep. Whilst simultaneously abandoning the English, Welsh and Northern Irish working class to even more domination by the elite in London.

Indeed.

[Alyakia]

True. Wales and Ireland were conquered weren't they? (<=No idea) But at the same time technically not all of the US wanted to join together at first either as far as I'm aware. But even if at first the feeling wasn't necessarily countries within countries co-operating, is that not the set-up that's going on now? Legally at least?

Wales was conquered a long long time ago, but has had representation in the westminster parliament for a very long time (longer than even Scotland or Ireland).

Ireland had a parliament and it voted for Union merging with the Kingdom of Great Britain and forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

And no. Legally the UK is a unitary state with three semi-autonomous regions...the country within a country is just a poetic thing, the UK is not a federal state in any way.

The difference is that the UK can dissolve the devolved governments at any time, while the US federal government has no authority to dissolve any state of the Union. This is because the devolved governments have no sovereignty, and the US federal government and the States share sovereignty.

i'm going to interpret the first line as you know that wales was conquered but you said conquered nations can leave, so you're trying to bullshit your way out of it. you know that there ukraninans in the communist party, right?

ah yes, ireland, another nation that totally was not conquered.

[The British Galactic Empire]

Ok, im only going to say this one more time...if you can't understand it then it's your problem.

The. EU. Is. Not. A. State. Nor. A. Federation. It has no sovereignty, it has no armed forces, it is not a sovereign STATE.

The two cases are not comparable. If the UK chose to leave the EU tomorrow it would be the same as the US leaving the OAS. Scotland leaving the union would be the same as California unilaterally leaving the US....

the OAS has nowhere near the kind of power that the EU does.

Irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant. It holds no legal sovereignty, so they are legally the same thing even if one does more than the other.

And no, it would not have to ask Russia since Latvia never voted to join the soviet union, it was conquered so it had every right to leave.

Scotland did vote to join the Union, unlike what a lot of people think, England never conquered Scotland. Scotland is an equal parter in the UK (actually no since it has more rights than England), not a conquered nation.

oh, so most of the united states can leave then? probably most of france and germany as well, now that i think about it. they definitely never voted to join.

Any state in the United States can leave (or should be able to) if the other states agree to it. The alternative is chaos. Let's not forget that each states owes a bit of the national debt, and has within it infrastructure built with the federal state's money, and so on. If any part of any country could leave as soon as the national debt rose a bit, than we would have complete chaos in the world: it would be total irresponsibility, the sort of thing you might like.

if scotland is an equal partner that voluntarily joined, then why can't it leave? is it because the UK has an army and the (trigger warning: EU) EU does not?

Not all the nations of the UK agreed to enter.

yes, wales was forcibly annexed to england. i suppose that gives them every right to leave, huh?[/quote]

No. Wales was represented in the parliament that voted yes on both acts of union. In any case, Wales does no belong to England today.

[The British Galactic Empire]

Wales was conquered a long long time ago, but has had representation in the westminster parliament for a very long time (longer than even Scotland or Ireland).

Ireland had a parliament and it voted for Union merging with the Kingdom of Great Britain and forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

And no. Legally the UK is a unitary state with three semi-autonomous regions...the country within a country is just a poetic thing, the UK is not a federal state in any way.

The difference is that the UK can dissolve the devolved governments at any time, while the US federal government has no authority to dissolve any state of the Union. This is because the devolved governments have no sovereignty, and the US federal government and the States share sovereignty.

i'm going to interpret the first line as you know that wales was conquered but you said conquered nations can leave, so you're trying to bullshit your way out of it. you know that there ukraninans in the communist party, right?

ah yes, ireland, another nation that totally was not conquered.

Yes, Wales was conquered by England. They then were represented in the parliament that voted for the creation of the UK. They may leave England at any time (which is absurd since there is no legal entity known as "England" today), but not the UK since they voted for it.

Ireland had a parliament at the time it chose to merge with the Kingdom of Great Britain. It was a completely legal process.

[Alyakia]

No. Wales was represented in the parliament that voted yes on both acts of union. In any case, Wales does no belong to England today.

yes. both acts of union. for ireland and scotland. there was no act of union for wales. do you need a refresher on how wales became legally a part of the kingdom of england?

i'm not sure why it's relevant that they voted unify england and scotland when they never voted to unify england and wales, which you think would be what matters.

ukrainain politicians signed the documents to get latvia in. does this mean ukraine lost its right to leave the USSR? you clearly care more about how it looks than what actually happens if you think ireland is a-ok.

actually, do you think ireland should never have declared independence in the first place? there's an interesting question for you.

[The British Galactic Empire]

No. Wales was represented in the parliament that voted yes on both acts of union. In any case, Wales does no belong to England today.

yes. both acts of union. for ireland and scotland. there was no act of union for wales. do you need a refresher on how wales became legally a part of the kingdom of england?

i'm not sure why it's relevant that they voted unify england and scotland when they never voted to unify england and wales, which you think would be what matters.

ukrainain politicians signed the documents to get latvia in. does this mean ukraine lost its right to leave the USSR? you clearly care more about how it looks than what actually happens if you think ireland is a-ok.

actually, do you think ireland should never have declared independence in the first place? there's an interesting question for you.

Of course it should never have declared unilateral independence, but the current Irish state is not a descendent of that failed experiment, but of the Irish Free State, which the Westminster Parliament legally approved.

After it attained home rule, Ireland had full legal power to abolish the monarchy and sever all ties with the UK. That process was completely legal, reason why i fully respect the current legitimate state of Ireland.

And actually there were laws that united Wales and England after it was conquered, approved by the Welsh local rulers of the time. Again, no illegality.

About Latvia and the USSR, i cannot discuss law and legality in the context of a state that had no laws other than what Stalin said was right. Yes, the Irish parliament of the time did a bad job of representing all Irish people (most parliaments in the world, at the time, did), but there was a process of legality behind it nonetheless. The USSR, like most socialist states, had no true "laws": they did not have to circumvent the law like many politicians did with the Irish case...the only law was Stalin.

Stop trying to compare oranges and potatoes!

[Slavonian kingdom]

Despite the lattest poll the NO vote will certainly prevail. The jocks are just to long in the Union and are not used to rule by themself.

[The Scientific States]

Despite the lattest poll the NO vote will certainly prevail. The jocks are just to long in the Union and are not used to rule by themself.

I wouldn't say that with utmost certainty. I find it likely that No will "win", but it's arrogant to say that they certainly will prevail. The polls are fairly close, and though the no campaign has a slight advantage, you can't say they will certainly win.

[Vellosia]

In a slightly different direction, the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union both explicitly state that the Union is 'forever' once it comes into effect.

That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall on the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN

The Acts of Union as passed by the two parliaments contain this article, and these articles remain unamended.

So is Scottish secession technically illegal anyway?

[Alyakia]

In a slightly different direction, the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union both explicitly state that the Union is 'forever' once it comes into effect.

That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall on the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN

The Acts of Union as passed by the two parliaments contain this article, and these articles remain unamended.

So is Scottish secession technically illegal anyway?

parliamentary sovereignty. *cough*

they're clearly already willing to make the changes required.

[Vellosia]

In a slightly different direction, the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union both explicitly state that the Union is 'forever' once it comes into effect.



The Acts of Union as passed by the two parliaments contain this article, and these articles remain unamended.

So is Scottish secession technically illegal anyway?

parliamentary sovereignty. *cough*

they're clearly already willing to make the changes required.

Westminster could just refuse though...

[Pesda]

Not all the nations of the UK agreed to enter.

True. Wales and Ireland were conquered weren't they? (<=No idea) But at the same time technically not all of the US wanted to join together at first either as far as I'm aware. But even if at first the feeling wasn't necessarily countries within countries co-operating, is that not the set-up that's going on now? Legally at least?

I would agree that the current situation, de facto at least, could be described as "countries within a country." Legally however, I guess it's not that simple.

[Alyakia]

And actually there were laws that united Wales and England after it was conquered, approved by the Welsh local rulers of the time. Again, no illegality.

you seriously need to decide whether conquered nations can "voluntary" sign things have it mean anything or not. do you think the king, having literally invaded annexed and wales, would have been like "you don't wanna sign this ok whatever have fun"?

and yes, the only law was stalin. so it was legal according to him. but that doesn't mean we should care that it was "legal" like that actually means something. similarly, welsh rules officially declaring that england is totally cool while the english army is roaming about doesn't mean much either.

parliamentary sovereignty. *cough*

they're clearly already willing to make the changes required.

Westminster could just refuse though...

technically yes. wouldn't work out very well though.

[Pesda]

yes. both acts of union. for ireland and scotland. there was no act of union for wales. do you need a refresher on how wales became legally a part of the kingdom of england?

i'm not sure why it's relevant that they voted unify england and scotland when they never voted to unify england and wales, which you think would be what matters.

ukrainain politicians signed the documents to get latvia in. does this mean ukraine lost its right to leave the USSR? you clearly care more about how it looks than what actually happens if you think ireland is a-ok.

actually, do you think ireland should never have declared independence in the first place? there's an interesting question for you.

Of course it should never have declared unilateral independence, but the current Irish state is not a descendent of that failed experiment, but of the Irish Free State, which the Westminster Parliament legally approved.

After it attained home rule, Ireland had full legal power to abolish the monarchy and sever all ties with the UK. That process was completely legal, reason why i fully respect the current legitimate state of Ireland.

And actually there were laws that united Wales and England after it was conquered, approved by the Welsh local rulers of the time. Again, no illegality.

About Latvia and the USSR, i cannot discuss law and legality in the context of a state that had no laws other than what Stalin said was right. Yes, the Irish parliament of the time did a bad job of representing all Irish people (most parliaments in the world, at the time, did), but there was a process of legality behind it nonetheless. The USSR, like most socialist states, had no true "laws": they did not have to circumvent the law like many politicians did with the Irish case...the only law was Stalin.

Stop trying to compare oranges and potatoes!

Which Welsh local rulers are you referring to?

[Machtergreifung]

parliamentary sovereignty. *cough*

they're clearly already willing to make the changes required.

Westminster could just refuse though...

Which would be very stupid of it.

[Angleter]

Despite the lattest poll the NO vote will certainly prevail. The jocks are just to long in the Union and are not used to rule by themself.

Oh, for Christ's sake. If I happen to wake up an Anglo-Cambro-Northern Irish citizen one morning in 2016, I'm blaming you.

[Alyakia]

Despite the lattest poll the NO vote will certainly prevail. The jocks are just to long in the Union and are not used to rule by themself.

Oh, for Christ's sake. If I happen to wake up an Anglo-Cambro-Northern Irish citizen one morning in 2016, I'm blaming you.

"YES"

angleter confirmed secret cybernat

[Olivaero]

Despite the lattest poll the NO vote will certainly prevail. The jocks are just to long in the Union and are not used to rule by themself.

Oh, for Christ's sake. If I happen to wake up an Anglo-Cambro-Northern Irish citizen one morning in 2016, I'm blaming you.

Okay Anglo-Cambro-Northern Irish does sound pretty awesome though. Is Cambro really a demonym? I might even warm up to this whole deal if I can be an Anglo-Cambro citizen.

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

I think his point is that India, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the British Empire would have had more incentive to stay if they had been federalised. I doubt that'd be true for India, which is such a massive nation for any other government to cater for, but perhaps he'd be right with the more "Anglicised" colonies such as the Aussies and Kiwis.

They were federalised. That's what Dominion status and then Commonwealth realm was.

No ,it wasn't. How many Dominion MPs were in the "Imperial" Parliament in London? Plus the asymmetry - the Dominions had their Parliaments but the UK Parliament was also the Imperial Parliament. Federalisation would have required separate Parliament(s) for the British Isles or constituent nations, and equal representation of all the Kingdoms/Dominions/whatever in the Imperial Parliament.

Back to the point here: Westminster has a track record of offering too few powers too late to regions which are dissatisfied & seeking home rule or independence. The same applies here - Devo Max or proper federalism (with cleary delineated division of powers between national/regional parliaments and the UK parliament) would have been the clear winner in Scotland if offered back at the start of the current IndyRef campaign. That was ruled out by Westminster and they are now claiming to reconsider when there is a possible majority in favour of independence rather than status quo.

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

do you think the UK should leave the EU? if so, do you think the rest of the union should accept he UKs unilateral leaving? especially since there is no procedure for leaving?

Erm, you might want to look at Art 50 of the EU Treaty: "1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements..."

[Angleter]

Oh, for Christ's sake. If I happen to wake up an Anglo-Cambro-Northern Irish citizen one morning in 2016, I'm blaming you.

Okay Anglo-Cambro-Northern Irish does sound pretty awesome though. Is Cambro really a demonym? I might even warm up to this whole deal if I can be an Anglo-Cambro citizen.

Oddly enough, yes.

[Saint-Thor]

3. Oh yes, the anti-imperialism popular front method, where the working class aligns with the national bourgeoisie. Popular with the Stalinists, Maoists and neo-Trots. However, siding with Scottish nationalism is even worse, because Scotland is not being oppressed, nor is it being attacked or threatened militarily. in fact, Salmond is happy for Scotland to be part of Nato and said an independent Scotland would mean that the US would have two allies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27725439

You don't have to be oppressed to want independence. Self determination itself can act as an only reason. The discourse of the nationalists in Scotland is base on that, not on the hatred of the English or because they feel oppressed.

[SD_Film Artists]

3. Oh yes, the anti-imperialism popular front method, where the working class aligns with the national bourgeoisie. Popular with the Stalinists, Maoists and neo-Trots. However, siding with Scottish nationalism is even worse, because Scotland is not being oppressed, nor is it being attacked or threatened militarily. in fact, Salmond is happy for Scotland to be part of Nato and said an independent Scotland would mean that the US would have two allies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27725439

You don't have to be oppressed to want independence. Self determination itself can act as an only reason. The discourse of the nationalists in Scotland is base on that, not on the hatred of the English or because they feel oppressed.

Isn't the Yes campaign claiming to base independence on economics? Self-determination is simply a route, not a destination.

[Briwen]

3. Oh yes, the anti-imperialism popular front method, where the working class aligns with the national bourgeoisie. Popular with the Stalinists, Maoists and neo-Trots. However, siding with Scottish nationalism is even worse, because Scotland is not being oppressed, nor is it being attacked or threatened militarily. in fact, Salmond is happy for Scotland to be part of Nato and said an independent Scotland would mean that the US would have two allies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-27725439

You don't have to be oppressed to want independence. Self determination itself can act as an only reason. The discourse of the nationalists in Scotland is base on that, not on the hatred of the English or because they feel oppressed.

+1