The Mod-Sanctioned Scottish Referendum Megathread

[Saint-Thor]

I read this morning that Westminster is ready to make some concessions to gain more support for the No. Typical. That reminds me what Trudeau and Chrétien promised in 1980 and 1995 when they had their backs to the wall. None of them respected their promise after the No won, especially Trudeau.

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.

I never said you did. It was a response to this...

A lot of nationalism are opposed to imperialism.

An opposition to imperialism either implies you're being oppressed, or the Scottish left-nationalists delude themselves into thinking they're opposing imperialism because of the inconvenience of moving Trident elsewhere, neglecting the fact that an independent Scotland won't be innocent, it will be a part of Nato, still think a yes vote is (in your words), "opposed to imperialism"?

No, opposing imperialism in this case implies that you don't want to hand over a part of your sovereignty to another political entity (in this case, Westminster). It's that simple. Like I said, you don't have to be oppressed. I live in Canada. Do you think we achieved our "independence" because we were oppressed by the UK? There are many other similar cases in the world.

About Nato, while I agree that it may be perceived as tool of imperialism in the world (in eastern Europe mostly), said imperialism is not directed toward its constituent members. Essentially it remains an alliance of nations and every members are free to withdraw themselves from the treaty, like France did in 1966 (to the great displeasure of the US I admit). Scotland would be free to do it too if they wish and that wouldn't make them persona non grata.

[SD_Film Artists]

Apparently David Cameron and the other main Westminster leaders are heading to Scotland to support the Better Together vote. I would've thought that if anything the Better Together campaigners would prefer to have Westminster politics at arm’s length and keep to a grassroots/business approach. If "because the Tories and Ed Miliband said so" is their idea of a secret weapon then I worry for them.

They should leave it to Gordon Brown. Although consider that they may be down there to announce exactly what powers are going to be devolved to Scotland after the referendum hopefully they've struck a firm bargain between them and there'll be no infighting then post announcement they swiftly pack up and fuck off and leave the last few days to the established No Campaign.

Perhaps so. I only hope that the established campaign sticks to business leaders and celebrities like JK Rowling.

[Angleter]

Apparently David Cameron and the other main Westminster leaders are heading to Scotland to support the Better Together vote. I would've thought that if anything the Better Together campaigners would prefer to have Westminster politics at arm’s length and keep to a grassroots/business approach. If "because the Tories and Ed Miliband said so" is their idea of a secret weapon then I worry for them.

True, but keeping them at bay could also give the impression that they don't care.

[Angleter]

the answer is fairy simple: scotland is nation, my street and the democratic republic of my toilet are not, and anyone that makes this comparison fundamentally does not understand what is going on and is literally just begging for some neo-napoleon to march in and start reciting their arguments back at them.

But still, where do you draw the line? Cornwall and Texas aren't nations (or Constituent Countries), but they still have independence movements. What if the Scottish Islands decided that they think Oslo would be a better captial?

The Cornish and Texan nationalists would probably argue otherwise.

[SD_Film Artists]

But still, where do you draw the line? Cornwall and Texas aren't nations (or Constituent Countries), but they still have independence movements. What if the Scottish Islands decided that they think Oslo would be a better captial?

The Cornish and Texan nationalists would probably argue otherwise.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "nation". Either way, Cornwall isn't a Constituent Country.

[Parti Ouvrier]

I never said you did. It was a response to this...

An opposition to imperialism either implies you're being oppressed, or the Scottish left-nationalists delude themselves into thinking they're opposing imperialism because of the inconvenience of moving Trident elsewhere, neglecting the fact that an independent Scotland won't be innocent, it will be a part of Nato, still think a yes vote is (in your words), "opposed to imperialism"?

No, opposing imperialism in this case implies that you don't want to hand over a part of your sovereignty to another political entity (in this case, Westminster). It's that simple. Like I said, you don't have to be oppressed. I live in Canada. Do you think we achieved our "independence" because we were oppressed by the UK? There are many other similar cases in the world.

But that has nothing to do with opposing imperialism. And Canada, besides being a colonial settler state retains the Queen as head of state, as will an independent Scotland, although Scotland is not an exclusionary colonial settler state, in other words, white Europeans were not oppressed, but the natives (first nations), were!

About Nato, while I agree that it may be perceived as tool of imperialism in the world (in eastern Europe mostly), said imperialism is not directed toward its constituent members. Essentially it remains an alliance of nations and every members are free to withdraw themselves from the treaty, like France did in 1966 (to the great displeasure of the US I admit). Scotland would be free to do it too if they wish and that wouldn't make them persona non grata.

No, it is a tool of US imperialism (its creation of a 'rapid reaction force' in reality depends on the US - only the US has the military infrastructure to do such things) and obviously not directed toward constituent members, because they're part of it, albeit lower down in the imperialist hierarchy. And I very much doubt an "ally" (to use Salmonds words), of the US, I very much doubt an independent Scotland would leave Nato.

[Socialist Assembly Marxists]

Abstain
^Sums up my attitude to the Scottish referendum.

[Dalcaria]

Here's an interesting little tidbit to add to the debate: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29136149

So Salmond wants the Queen to reign over Scotland still? That almost seems defeating of the purpose to independence in a sense. I mean, I suppose it could be a lot like her being the Queen of most of the Commonwealth States, but it does seem odd to me. Still, this means that it allows for a bit of political openness in the UK if Scotland does break away. Currently anyone born in the UK, the Commonwealth, and I believe the Irish Republic can run for political office in the UK, including being Prime Minister, so Scots (if they move to the UK) could still run for Prime Minister if they wanted, should Scotland break away.

[Estado Nacional]

Here's an interesting little tidbit to add to the debate: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29136149

So Salmond wants the Queen to reign over Scotland still? That almost seems defeating of the purpose to independence in a sense. I mean, I suppose it could be a lot like her being the Queen of most of the Commonwealth States, but it does seem odd to me. Still, this means that it allows for a bit of political openness in the UK if Scotland does break away. Currently anyone born in the UK, the Commonwealth, and I believe the Irish Republic can run for political office in the UK, including being Prime Minister, so Scots (if they move to the UK) could still run for Prime Minister if they wanted, should Scotland break away.

I believe Scotland is bound to become a republic if they become independent.

[Na h-Alba Nuadh]

I read this morning that Westminster is ready to make some concessions to gain more support for the No. Typical. That reminds me what Trudeau and Chrétien promised in 1980 and 1995 when they had their backs to the wall. None of them respected their promise after the No won, especially Trudeau.

Westminister did it before: in the 1979 referendum for a Scottish Assembly, Lord Douglas-Home told the Scots to vote No to the current proprosals and the Conservatives would give them a better one. Thatcher then reneged on that when elected, and it took until 1997 for another referendum on devolution following the election of a Labour party government at Westminster. During the 18 years of Tory, they had 22 MPs elected in 1979, 21 in 1983, 10 in 1987, 11 in 1992 and 0 in 1997 (all out of 71 Scottish seats).

Right at the start of the current independence campaign, Westminister ruled out any "Devo Max" or federal option in the referendum, they dictated it was to be a straight in/out vote. Two years on, with days to go and unfavourable opinion polls, suddenly offering to devolve unspecified powers at some indeterminate time just looks like a ploy of desperation, whereas a similar offer 6 months ago could have had a major impact on the campaign.

[Briwen]

Since it is 2 pages ago I said it.

ALBA!!!!!!!!

[SD_Film Artists]

No, opposing imperialism in this case implies that you don't want to hand over a part of your sovereignty to another political entity (in this case, Westminster). It's that simple. Like I said, you don't have to be oppressed. I live in Canada. Do you think we achieved our "independence" because we were oppressed by the UK? There are many other similar cases in the world.

But that has nothing to do with opposing imperialism. And Canada, besides being a colonial settler state

"colonial settler state" is a rather loaded term don't you think? I mean, it implies that colonialism/settling are the two defining aspects of the state, and yet that's false since those two things have absolutely nothing to do with modern Canada. And even hundreds of years ago when Canada was legally defined as a colony, there's still much more to a nation than "colonial settler".

retains the Queen as head of state, as will an independent Scotland

It's the Scottish people's (or at least, the SNP's) wish to keep the Queen as the head of state.

white Europeans were not oppressed, but the natives (first nations), were!

In modern Canada the people with native heritage are just as much a part of Canada as ethnic Europeans, so I don't see how that's relevant to your post or Scottish independence.

[Briwen]

if Alba becomes independent the Queen and the English royals will be soon abolished. (finally.)

[SD_Film Artists]

Here's an interesting little tidbit to add to the debate: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29136149

So Salmond wants the Queen to reign over Scotland still? That almost seems defeating of the purpose to independence in a sense. I mean, I suppose it could be a lot like her being the Queen of most of the Commonwealth States, but it does seem odd to me.

How so? Having the Queen as an independent Scotland's Head of State doesn't give Westminster any more power over it than Canada or Australia. If you want to look at something that's really "defeating of the purpose to independence" then that'll be the SNP wanting to maintain the Bank of England as its de facto central bank.

[The Nihilistic view]

if Alba becomes independent the Queen and the English royals will be soon abolished. (finally.)

That makes precisely zero sense. Scotland is one of the least Monarchist regions of the UK (although more still approve of them than don't ). Scotland leaves then the royals grip on the throne of whats left of the UK only strengthens making them more likely to endure.

[SD_Film Artists]

Since it is 2 pages ago I said it.

ALBA!!!!!!!!

You know, Alba (or Albion) gained its name from the white cliffs of Dover.

[SD_Film Artists]

if Alba becomes independent the Queen and the English royals will be soon abolished. (finally.)

That makes precisely zero sense. Scotland is one of the least Monarchist regions of the UK (although more still approve of them than don't ). Scotland leaves then the royals grip on the throne of whats left of the UK only strengthens making them more likely to endure.

If there was any fallacy there I would've thought it'll be that Briwen was claiming that the Royals are exclusively English, or thinking that the SNP is anti-monarchist in any way.

[Briwen]

Since it is 2 pages ago I said it.

ALBA!!!!!!!!

You know, Alba (or Albion) gained its name from the white cliffs of Dover.

Alba is a celtic word deriving from ancient celtic languages

and it means "Land"

like the Alps also from the same root also meaning land.

So nope you are wrong

Albion is the name for all of Britain, and `ion was in ancient celtic often given to cities and countries, like Brigantion.

"The Brittonic name for the island, Latinized as Albiō and Hellenized as Ἀλβίων, derives from the Proto-Celtic nasal stem *Albi̯iū (oblique *Albiion-) and survived in Old Irish as Albu, genitive Albann, originally referring to Britain as a whole, but later restricted to northern Britain/Scotland (giving the modern Scottish Gaelic name for Scotland, Alba). The root, *albiio- also found in Gaulish and Galatian albio- "world" and Welsh elfydd (Old Welsh elbid) "earth, world, land, country, district", and may be related to other European and Mediterranean toponyms such as Alpes and Albania. It has two possible etymologies: either *albho-, a Proto-Indo-European root meaning "white" (perhaps in reference to the white southern shores of the island, though Celtic linguist Xavier Delamarre argued that it originally meant "the world above, the visible world", in opposition to "the world below", i.e., the underworld in Celtic religion), or *alb-, Proto-Indo-European for "hill".["

Edit: since Vind/wind in ancient celtic or Wen Gwen in newer celtic means white i dont think that Alba means white.

[SD_Film Artists]

You know, Alba (or Albion) gained its name from the white cliffs of Dover.

Alba is a celtic word deriving from ancient celtic languages

and it means "Land"

like the Alps also from the same root also meaning land.

So nope you are wrong

Albion is the name for all of Britain, and `ion was in ancient celtic often given to cities and countries, like Brigantion.

"The Brittonic name for the island, Latinized as Albiō and Hellenized as Ἀλβίων, derives from the Proto-Celtic nasal stem *Albi̯iū (oblique *Albiion-) and survived in Old Irish as Albu, genitive Albann, originally referring to Britain as a whole, but later restricted to northern Britain/Scotland (giving the modern Scottish Gaelic name for Scotland, Alba). The root, *albiio- also found in Gaulish and Galatian albio- "world" and Welsh elfydd (Old Welsh elbid) "earth, world, land, country, district", and may be related to other European and Mediterranean toponyms such as Alpes and Albania. It has two possible etymologies: either *albho-, a Proto-Indo-European root meaning "white" (perhaps in reference to the white southern shores of the island, though Celtic linguist Xavier Delamarre argued that it originally meant "the world above, the visible world", in opposition to "the world below", i.e., the underworld in Celtic religion), or *alb-, Proto-Indo-European for "hill".["

Isn't that only proving what I said earlier?

[Briwen]

Alba is a celtic word deriving from ancient celtic languages

and it means "Land"

like the Alps also from the same root also meaning land.

So nope you are wrong

Albion is the name for all of Britain, and `ion was in ancient celtic often given to cities and countries, like Brigantion.

"The Brittonic name for the island, Latinized as Albiō and Hellenized as Ἀλβίων, derives from the Proto-Celtic nasal stem *Albi̯iū (oblique *Albiion-) and survived in Old Irish as Albu, genitive Albann, originally referring to Britain as a whole, but later restricted to northern Britain/Scotland (giving the modern Scottish Gaelic name for Scotland, Alba). The root, *albiio- also found in Gaulish and Galatian albio- "world" and Welsh elfydd (Old Welsh elbid) "earth, world, land, country, district", and may be related to other European and Mediterranean toponyms such as Alpes and Albania. It has two possible etymologies: either *albho-, a Proto-Indo-European root meaning "white" (perhaps in reference to the white southern shores of the island, though Celtic linguist Xavier Delamarre argued that it originally meant "the world above, the visible world", in opposition to "the world below", i.e., the underworld in Celtic religion), or *alb-, Proto-Indo-European for "hill".["

Isn't that only proving what I said earlier?

nope since the white theroy is the minority and is also illogical, since it was in ancient times allready called Albion and since the Alps or other regions derive from the same root.
Also Vind/wind in ancient celtic or Wen Gwen in newer celtic means white i dont think that Alba means white.

[SD_Film Artists]

Isn't that only proving what I said earlier?

nope since the white theroy is the minority and is also illogical, since it was in ancient times allready called Albion and since the Alps or other regions derive from the same root.
Also Vind/wind in ancient celtic or Wen Gwen in newer celtic means white i dont think that Alba means white.

Albus is "white" in Latin. And what does it matter if the Alps derive from the same root? If anything that only further links it to the Roman meaning of "white".

[Briwen]

Not like it matters now, fact is Scotland is called Alba.

[Briwen]

nope since the white theroy is the minority and is also illogical, since it was in ancient times allready called Albion and since the Alps or other regions derive from the same root.
Also Vind/wind in ancient celtic or Wen Gwen in newer celtic means white i dont think that Alba means white.

Albus is "white" in Latin. And what does it matter if the Alps derive from the same root?

So it is not a latin word since the celts didnt speak latin, so it doesnt matter wether in latin it is white or not, Also Scotland was never conquerd by Romans, and the Greek people refered to Britain as Albion first. And the Greeks are known to have better trade relations with the celtic world than the Romans, (also they have more accurate hostorians) secondly the Greeks wouldnt use a latin word.
Why does it matter? It matters because the white cliffs are very regional and the Alps or other areas have nothing to do with white.

edit: "The root, *albiio- also found in Gaulish and Galatian albio- "world" It is proven that the Gausl used albiio as world, so I dont see why we need to discuss further.

[Respawn]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -says.html

God bless Alex Salmond. He's Scotland's version of Hugo Chavez.

[Jinwoy]

Not like it matters now, fact is Scotland is called Alba.

Fun fact: The term comes from Albion, which was another name for Britain used by the Romans. Even in linguistics, Britain is a unified country.