BBC Blog Network

User Profile

aye_write

Listed below are comments made by aye_write between Monday, 13th July 2009 and Wednesday, 15th July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Keeping time 11:34pm on 15 Jul 2009 #910 ForteanJo

Fortean, I don't know what problems you are replying to in your posts (!), but it strikes me that we former Brits (only my favourite word when used in context and preceded by "a dose of the") will always be British, but only that, post the restoration of independence, the word will take on its correct meaning i.e non-political, referring as it should to the land mass where our countries are located.

So in the same way our neighbours are "Scandinavian", or "Iberia" covers an area over more than one country, "British" will just mean coming from a part of land with the label "Britain" or "The British Isles".
Keeping time 11:20pm on 15 Jul 2009 #885 MalcolmW2

(#902 part 3)
But being in the EU is no prerequisite of independence.

There is perhaps a question mark over whether we "need" to be in the EU. The people of Scotland would decide, but as we will be a member on independence anyway...it is not so much a question of is being in the EU best, but are the alternatives in fact better?

It's always a two way street (EFTA, EEA also having plusses and minuses). In any case, to quote a former EU ambassador to the UN, There could be no sustainable legal or political objection to Scottish membership of the European Union.. And England, Wales and Northern Ireland would also be in this position. Plus, we have all that water and perimeter coastline.

You mentioned an "EU defence force" as not sensible. So what is? It is argued that Britain is the best way to defend the four neighbouring nations. Not if Scotland can't have sovereign national representation. Geographically we are quite similar to the Scandi countries, and Ireland. What of international defence cooperation talks with them?

The world is changing. Britain is bogged down now in Afghanistan. To keep in with the US? (Its status doesn't escape me.) It's becoming a PR disaster. Just more food for thought ;-)
Keeping time 10:27pm on 15 Jul 2009 #885 MalcolmW2

(#902 part 2)
Next, none of this you mention about the EU is new thinking (you'll appreciate it's been said many times!). Neither would be equating the "failures" of the EU with independence therefore being "wrong". As I've said, that's not how it works. (And if it were, Scots would be the only nation on earth to think that way...)

Because Scotland's voice won't be disproportionately large in the EU, is no rational reason to accept the correct position of having no voice, and no voice elsewhere in the world. It's a very defeatist attitude to say the least, and not particularly mature.

As part of Britain we have no voice. It means we are reliant on the largest nation in Britain to have the same needs as we do - but it does not, cannot on everything! e.g. Scotland requires immigration, England doesn't (and all international issues are as important.)

Unlike nations in international organisations, if these needs clash, there is no way by which Scotland can mention it - we have no international voice, as we have no national voice. None of this is devolved stuff. It's not even about how much our voice would be heard, as you put it (that point we could debate), but it's that silence is ignored.

The nations of Britain would have a louder voice, through votes in the Council of Ministers, as a collective of normal (independent, not mute) nations, than as Britain now. On those issues we face together, then, we could be more effective, together. But not when only one voice talks for all four, and cannot represent all four, but only the largest.
Four independent sovereign nations = more sway than one constructed state of non-sovereign nations.

We'd also have treble the no. of MEPs as a nation (than as a region of Britain at present), get a European Commissioner and a seat at the UN - have the things all other countries have, in other words.
Keeping time 9:17pm on 15 Jul 2009 #885 MalcolmW2

Hold on Malcolm! Lets not get confused :-)

There are facts, and assumptions. Nationalists are always assuming so much about "rosy independent" Scotland? But "Brits" can be just as guilty of taking doom and gloom and making it sound realistic! Imagine your points being applied to another EU country, even England. Pop them in Scotland's shoes for a moment. Would any of that "pragmatism" placate their call for return of sovereignty? I don't think so. The two, a nation's sovereignty and the negative aspects of the EU, are on separate planes, in fact, you cannot be involved in relevant talk about any negative aspects of the EU unless you have sovereignty!

The question is not, self-determination, but only if the EU is an upstanding model of democracy first. The latter does not determine the former. It's the other way round.
The fundamental principle of self determination as a right, is not any less valid because some international organisations are flawed.
Keeping time 7:54pm on 14 Jul 2009 #858 MalcolmW2

Something for you to reply to then :-)

My problem with your being "fine with being British and..." is just that I don't think it's fine for Scotland to be relegated, for Britain, when being in Britain affords Scotland no "national" voice. As a proud Scot, I'm certainly not fine with that.

Plus your EU point, while valid or not regarding its future, however imperfectly, the EU at least recognises the nations within it. In Britain a nation equals a region, of Britain, where Britain is the only sovereign state. And Britain talks internationally, not her "regions". As I say, as a proud Scot, I am not happy with that.

As for Afghanistan.....
Keeping time 7:12pm on 14 Jul 2009 #858 MalcolmW2

OK, thanks.

What about Scotland, Malcolm?

(I'll return to Afganistan, unlike your French and Germans was it? ;-)
My uncle was in the RAF actually. Retired now.
Keeping time 7:00pm on 14 Jul 2009 #857 oldnat

It is far more cruel to be in those scenarios you state, reduced to a whinging "Who will look after us??" highlander - in anyone's political book, not good for the highlands - and contradicting nh's apparent desire to have more localism, for in order to do that, he wants the highlands to be "looked after correctly", by mammy Edinburgh or mammy "London", first??

I want nh to break out of those mindsets. If he came up with even the most basic ideas of how he wants further devolution to work, many on here would help him to develop his ideas.
Keeping time 6:26pm on 14 Jul 2009 #833 MalcolmW2

Malcolm, did you ever reply to my #237?

237. At 10:31am on 07 Jul 2009, aye_write wrote:

# 229 MalcolmW2

Malcolm, the point you make I do get. You are right, in that it is a matter of personal opinion - whether to support the continuation of the Union, or not. But it's in the detail, of the concept, that I make my decision against:

In a way I have no real problems with being termed British particularly. It is a version of the historical name for the land mass where I'm from, British history will always be part of Scottish history - I have no problem with that, at all! My problem with it is the consequences that legal British "nationality" (I'm aware that it is), for it's the political side I don't like, has for Scotland and being Scottish. For those terms pay a price, politically, they are subordinated, don't have the same status, as just about every other country, any more. You're right, I am not happy with that.

In your second point, that sovereignty of states is arguably slipping, isn't a reason I'd say to resign to this position of being without. The point in what you said, was that the topic is sovereignty, so without being in a sovereign position, Scotland can't even be a part of the debate! It would be lovely to even be in the position to have to contemplate this problem! (of a threat to sovereignty) Do you see?

And the reason Scotland can't talk for herself (in Europe, as I've set out before, having the same national voice as the other similar countries - and not merely 6 MEPs, like the Leeds area! - is incomparable to none! Westminster doesn't take note of national boundaries, as the EU does), is because we are surrounded by the construct of Britain - there's my negative with it.

The economic consequences of four economies being run as one aside (see the Cuthberts papers), and Westminster is hypocritically very vocal in its opposition to a similar level economic playing field across the EU, if the Union recognised it was made up of nations, it would arguably have more worth. But then it is already in such a one - the EU.

However, is worth noting that the British countries, and Scandinavian ones, and Ireland, have a different position, on the edges of Europe, than the more land locked inner countries do. So, if there were an argument, apart from economic, though we can't be Norway now, for looking at some form of political agreement between countries (as is what Britain has been), I would consider defence. I don't think you have to rescind all sovereignty in order to achieve that security though!

You have served in the British army? No wonder you feel British. What are your views? I have thoughts one way and another over the EU and Europe. If I were PM of independent Scotland, I suppose being represented in the EU (or just EEA?), the UN etc., I'd have regular talks as well with my British neighbours (in whatever form that took post Scottish independence - what of the Council of the Isles??) and other near neighbouring countries. I'd do that now in preparation for independence. I suppose the point I'm making, is without sovereignty, Scotland can't do any of those things. The largest body at Westminster does it, and that's not Scotland. To be happy with the Westminster way, I'd have to replace my Scottish, in that sense, with British, and I don't want to do that. I don't want Scottish to be less important.

We're not a forces family (just ordinary ;-), so British doesn't really affect our lives, apart from on telly and the news. But that's remote. It just means Scottish is not important enough to be represented on the world stage, or even to have its own media. It's unusual, for a nation. It's disappointing. That's how I feel about it.
Keeping time 6:11pm on 14 Jul 2009 #849 northhighlander

Come up with it then.
(SNP has draft constitution, which you may wish to alter?)

You're near to the problem. Lets have some local decision making.
(A chance to implement it, of course, is independence.)
Keeping time 6:04pm on 13 Jul 2009 #779 oldnat

Equal? Mum's a wee bitty better educated, and informed! (Her speeches are better, she has a nicer lilty accent, she speaks French....hadn't thought of any of this! ;-)

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

aye_write