Scottish Independence

[Mr Scruff]

There was a time in the mid-90's when I was a passionate advocate of independence, but on reflection that was much more based on Scottish patriotism than cold, hard logic. I was also probably influenced by (what looked like) the flourishing of independent nations in Eastern Europe after the collapse of Soviet influence.

 

Now, I find it hard to come up with a good argument in favour. I fear we would be less prosperous, having lost some of the entrepreneurial spirit which would have defined us a few generations ago. It's not that we're too poor/ stupid/ small as expressed elsewhere here. It's that I see more risks in a messy separation than potential benefits and therefore can't see the advantage.

 

However I do believe we need the national debate/ referendum. That's the logic of the overwhelming vote in favour of the SNP, and despite me not supporting them or their argument, we now need to do it. I think we should do it now.

 

The truth is that you simply can't prove this one way or the other without doing it. I get tired of arguments that imply the other side must be stupid/ incoherent/ willfully obtuse for not agreeing. Most facts can't be disputed. But the inference of those as they relate to independence or union are open to wide interpretation.

 

Today I'd vote in favour of staying in the union. Too many risks on the downside for me. I also believe we'd go through a painful period of political/ economic adjustment that could be very damaging at a critical time for the whole of Western economies.

 

But some thoughts:

 

- Why do the Conservatives in England continually resist Scottish independence? It must be more than the fact that they have 'Union' in their title. They'd have a continual majority in England if it wasn't for those pesky Scottish Labour MPs.

- Why do many secessionists want separation from the UK but integration to the EU. Questionable logic?

- Do the SNP have a post-independence programme, or is independence an end in itself? I realise they've governed the Scottish Parliament for several years, but a strong concept like independence can unite otherwise disparate ideologies.

- Which comparable economy do we really compare with? This is the key for me; many comparisons get on the wrong side of scary.

 

Could we flourish with independence? Maybe. Can anyone really answer differently.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Mr Scruff

[Lambies Lost Doo]

The Scottish people are more than capable of running their own affairs. We don't "need" the Union.

 

It's not the people who run their own affairs though. It's the politicians. Same all the world over. If you look at Alex Salmond's political career from hard left member of 79 group to staunch nationalist to pragmatic nationalistic to caring anglophile to friend of bankers (he sucked up to RBS big time before the collapse) to friend of business - Brian Soutar, Jim McColl to confederalist he chops and changes like many, many politicians.

[Allan Heron]

It's not the people who run their own affairs though. It's the politicians. Same all the world over. If you look at Alex Salmond's political career from hard left member of 79 group to staunch nationalist to pragmatic nationalistic to caring anglophile to friend of bankers (he sucked up to RBS big time before the collapse) to friend of business - Brian Soutar, Jim McColl to confederalist he chops and changes like many, many politicians.

 

The 79 Group were never hard left in a month of Sundays. They just stirred the shit at a time when the core of the SNP were more rural and of a more conservative mind. The balance of the party has changed significantly since then although there does remain a case that the SNP contain a number of 'isms all who consider independence as their top priority.

 

Salmon's also been pretty pro-business - he was, after all, a banker by profession and comes out of that world, and has never shown any inclination to be looking to rock its' foundations.

 

All that apart, why is Salmond's supposed journey a bad thing as you clearly think it to be. A lot of these alleged changes will reflect change in wider opinion. And a politician who isn't willing to recognise isn't a politician but a theorist.

[GrantB]

I see Danny Alexander has been trotting out the same old scare stories to CBI Scotland. Tragic.

[yoda-jag]

According to the latest treasury figures we paid in more than we received, so we are certainly not being subsidized. Perhaps its time to let the English go it alone, then they would have something to whine about.

 

 

This.

 

And several other posts backing Independence and the stating the positives for such a vote.

[honved]

 

Today I'd vote in favour of staying in the union. Too many risks on the downside for me.

 

I'd be genuinely interested in hearing what these risks are, since that's a line that's frequently trotted out by unionists without any real substance and is replacing the too wee, too stupid etc argument all over the place.

 

Is there a risk that companies will disinvest in Scotland post-independence? Well we heard that line on about the 9th of May from Iain Gray and since then, to take one example, Amazon have substantially increased their investment in Scotland.

 

Is there a financial risk, that, for example, as part of a settlement, the UK would impose on us a far larger proportion of the oft quoted state pension black hole? Unlikely, since no Scottish politician would accept that, unless there was a quid pro quo.

 

As things stand at the moment, Scotland, de facto, is a nation. It has its own laws, some of which are identical to the rest of the UK, its own legal system and its own education system, all three of which are distinctly different from the rest of the UK, so to imply that we're all "Winston Churchill's bairns" is just not correct. And we control our own part of the NHS, entirely without UK interference.

 

All of this is also writ large in the fact that English people call Manchester and its surroundings the North West and so on, in obvious acceptance of what Scottish Unionists fail to see...separate nations, in my view artificially bound together to the advantage of neither.

 

For my part, none of my nationalist views are based on anti English antagonism, it's just a realisation that for too long the advantages of having complete control of our own affairs, were dismissed as so much romantic twaddle. Quite obviously there would be no land of milk and honey post-independence and getting over the line from deciding to do it, to seeing it happen, will take a bloody hard struggle with a UK that seems determined on the one hand to call us benefit scroungers and on the other hand seems desperate to hang on to us. Funny, that.

 

In my mind, the Union has run its course, It's been like a school sports three-legged race, where wee nimble Scotland has been paired with big hefty England on the premise that working together will be more than the sum of its parts. In reality, we now hold each other back, watching whilst France and Germany skip past us arm in arm and the Nordic countries do likewise. We've lost the rhythm that we maybe had over a century ago and now the big lad just hauls us along, as we are dragged, trying to go in a different direction. Time to sit down on the grass, untie the knot and both run free wherever we choose to go.

[Guy Incognito]

Now, I find it hard to come up with a good argument in favour. I fear we would be less prosperous, having lost some of the entrepreneurial spirit which would have defined us a few generations ago. It's not that we're too poor/ stupid/ small as expressed elsewhere here. It's that I see more risks in a messy separation than potential benefits and therefore can't see the advantage.

So, how do you think that the entrepreneurial spirit will be reinvigorated by retaining the status quo? If this has dissipated as a result of being in the union, then how is remaining in it going to help?

 

I'm no expert in this field but the SNP's plan involves imposing a lower corporation tax, thus encouraging businesses to locate themselves in Scotland.

 

You are not alone, however, in having reservations about Scotland's economic viability: Torygraph article

 

It is enough to give you nightmares. The thought of Scotland becoming like Poland - a country with a poor health record whose young people vacate the place in droves in order to find better employment prospects elsewhere.

 

Oh, wait a minute ...

[Woodstock Jag]

As things stand at the moment, Scotland, de facto, is a nation. It has its own laws, some of which are identical to the rest of the UK, its own legal system and its own education system, all three of which are distinctly different from the rest of the UK, so to imply that we're all "Winston Churchill's bairns" is just not correct. And we control our own part of the NHS, entirely without UK interference.

 

All of this is also writ large in the fact that English people call Manchester and its surroundings the North West and so on, in obvious acceptance of what Scottish Unionists fail to see...separate nations, in my view artificially bound together to the advantage of neither.

 

I'd point out at this stage that a "nation" has no real meaning in law, thus all nations are de facto nations. If you mean a de facto state or nation-state, which certainly could be indicated by an autonomous legal system and system of governance, then you only partly have a point. Technically though, the idea of a de facto state or nation-state is also meaningless, since the practical effect of statehood is incumbent on de jure principles of recognition. States are creatures of international law, recognised by, among other things, the capacity to sign international treaties. The pre-Union Scotland was certainly such a state, having entered into the Treaty of Union, in so doing dissolving itself to allow for a new state to be formed.

 

The extent to which statehood and independence has any real meaning in an increasingly globalising world is up in the air for legitimate debate. This isn't an issue about being "Churchill's bairns" but rather what, if any, meaning statehood has in today's world and whether the concept of self-reference really holds when such significant parts of our lives are determined by transnational behaviour. We live in a world where major military activity is carried out by international alliances; where trade and economic activity transcends ever less tariffed borders; where freedom of movement (at least in the West) is greater than it has been for centuries; where transnational bodies like the EU arrogate many of the "sovereign" powers that makes a state a state.

 

For me at least, we've reached the stage where what I call my state or my nation-state has no meaning. We are citizens of the world. What ultimately matters now is not notions of geographical self-identification, but of the effective and accountable distribution of power. There is no question that the existing distribution is unsatisfactory in both effectiveness and accountability. The idea of federalising power: distributing it at different territorial levels according to those two guiding principles, is what makes the decisions people take on our behalf matter.

 

Asymmetrical devolution of power from the UK into a quasi-federal system (including upwards to the EU as well as downwards into devolved parliaments/assemblies) was a hugely inelegant attempt to make good that ideal. Equally though, independence in and of itself doesn't answer the question asked. It just shoves that problem of power distribution one more link down the chain. Devolution shouldn't just have been about giving "Scotland" more control over its affairs. It was meant to be about Glaswegians, Teuchters, Fifers and Dundonians having a more tangible influence on issues very real and local and relevant to them previously controlled by elected representatives who largely represented different localities, different systems and different demands. It's no use vesting all power in Westminster when the needs and desires of the population in Basingstoke is so widly different from those in Ballater. Equally however, it's no use vesting all the power in Holyrood if the needs and desires of those in Easterhouses bear no relation to the needs and desires of those in Elgin.

 

Indeed it's possible that particular demands continue to transcend borders, with certain Scottish communities' interests having more in common with some English communities than other Scottish ones. Purely for example, the towns whose economies rely almost entirely on the placement of British Armed Forces bases, be they in Scotland or England, have a common interest which Leuchars and Kirkcaldy don't even really share. This is why we've come to realise that crude divisions along national lines aren't necessarily addressing the fundamental problem.

 

That's why I said earlier that we should be putting more of our time and energies into breaking down national barriers the world over rather than quibbling over where to put them. The meat of the real debate is one of how we separate powers. Devolution of virtually all power (taxes, drug laws, all bar defence issues, really) can ultimately achieve the same economic and social ends as "independence". Indeed most suggested models of independence seem to imply some sort of common defence agreement with the rump of the UK. The only substantive difference is autonomous international identity. The truth is "independence" in any international context is increasingly meaningless. The world is an interdependent beast, and if we spend too much time trying to distinguish ourselves along relatively arbitrary lines of nationhood, we risk missing the bigger picture.

[Mr Scruff]

So, how do you think that the entrepreneurial spirit will be reinvigorated by retaining the status quo? If this has dissipated as a result of being in the union, then how is remaining in it going to help?

 

I'm no expert in this field but the SNP's plan involves imposing a lower corporation tax, thus encouraging businesses to locate themselves in Scotland.

 

You are not alone, however, in having reservations about Scotland's economic viability: Torygraph article

 

It is enough to give you nightmares. The thought of Scotland becoming like Poland - a country with a poor health record whose young people vacate the place in droves in order to find better employment prospects elsewhere.

 

Oh, wait a minute ...

Now there's the thing if there's been one argument that would seal it for me it's that one - ie that the best way we could move from where we are now to a more dynamic, diverse and successful economy would be to go through the painful readjustment required through independence. I just don't have the faith in our political institutions to see that happening.

 

If it were to work I believe it would take a generation of (as I say, painful) rebalancing and readjustment. Being in my mid-40s with 25 years or so left in business, and with several kids at school who will be trying to build careers during that time, I really fear for what the character of that readjustment would be.

 

I would love to have the faith that you have, but I do believe that the challenges should not be underestimated.

 

As I concluded my post, I don't possess the certainty that others have on this one. I defy anyone to predict the success or otherwise with certainty. The question is one of where you assess the balance of risk/ opportunity, and my fears lie all with the potential risks. Having said that I do have an open mind.

 

(PS thanks for posting the link to an interesting article - hadn't read that one)

[Mr Scruff]

I'd be genuinely interested in hearing what these risks are, since that's a line that's frequently trotted out by unionists without any real substance and is replacing the too wee, too stupid etc argument all over the place.

 

Is there a risk that companies will disinvest in Scotland post-independence? Well we heard that line on about the 9th of May from Iain Gray and since then, to take one example, Amazon have substantially increased their investment in Scotland.

 

Is there a financial risk, that, for example, as part of a settlement, the UK would impose on us a far larger proportion of the oft quoted state pension black hole? Unlikely, since no Scottish politician would accept that, unless there was a quid pro quo.

 

As things stand at the moment, Scotland, de facto, is a nation. It has its own laws, some of which are identical to the rest of the UK, its own legal system and its own education system, all three of which are distinctly different from the rest of the UK, so to imply that we're all "Winston Churchill's bairns" is just not correct. And we control our own part of the NHS, entirely without UK interference.

 

All of this is also writ large in the fact that English people call Manchester and its surroundings the North West and so on, in obvious acceptance of what Scottish Unionists fail to see...separate nations, in my view artificially bound together to the advantage of neither.

 

For my part, none of my nationalist views are based on anti English antagonism, it's just a realisation that for too long the advantages of having complete control of our own affairs, were dismissed as so much romantic twaddle. Quite obviously there would be no land of milk and honey post-independence and getting over the line from deciding to do it, to seeing it happen, will take a bloody hard struggle with a UK that seems determined on the one hand to call us benefit scroungers and on the other hand seems desperate to hang on to us. Funny, that.

 

In my mind, the Union has run its course, It's been like a school sports three-legged race, where wee nimble Scotland has been paired with big hefty England on the premise that working together will be more than the sum of its parts. In reality, we now hold each other back, watching whilst France and Germany skip past us arm in arm and the Nordic countries do likewise. We've lost the rhythm that we maybe had over a century ago and now the big lad just hauls us along, as we are dragged, trying to go in a different direction. Time to sit down on the grass, untie the knot and both run free wherever we choose to go.

I didn't realise I was 'trotting out' an argument. I was just saying where I stand on the risks. And yes, my view of the risks are all economic, which would be the main impact of independence.

 

I don't see where I implied that we're all "Winston Churchill's bairns"; I'm not even sure what that means.

 

To properly respond to you, though, in terms of the risks I perceive will take more time than I have at the moment. If I get the opportunity I will try and summarise them without boring the @rse off everyone. However, and this was the real thrust of my post, I won't be able to prove that these risks will materialise. Just as you won't be able to prove that they won't, or that they won't be much worse. That's why my answer today, and tomorrow will be maybe, and one of the reasons I would vote against it in a referendum.

[Meister Jag]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

and no

 

lets think now best bits for the devolved government big boys gang

 

could it be the Parliament building or the Edinburgh trams.

 

piss up in a brewery jumps to mind, and don't get me started on al megrahi fiasco

 

yes salmond is Hitler in disguise, just thought i would get i it out of the way now Honved

 

Salmond is Hitler I read this when you posted it and still can't stop laughing. Work on some extra material and you'd be good to go as a Bernard Manning tribute act

Edited September 4, 2011 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

Salmond is Hitler I read this when you posted it and still can't stop laughing. Work on some extra material and you'd be good to go as a Bernard manning tribute act

 

 

 

how many times, a joke with Honved from a previous thread.

 

would stalin have been better for you

[Meister Jag]

I'd point out at this stage that a "nation" has no real meaning in law, thus all nations are de facto nations. If you mean a de facto state or nation-state, which certainly could be indicated by an autonomous legal system and system of governance, then you only partly have a point. Technically though, the idea of a de facto state or nation-state is also meaningless, since the practical effect of statehood is incumbent on de jure principles of recognition. States are creatures of international law, recognised by, among other things, the capacity to sign international treaties. The pre-Union Scotland was certainly such a state, having entered into the Treaty of Union, in so doing dissolving itself to allow for a new state to be formed.

 

The extent to which statehood and independence has any real meaning in an increasingly globalising world is up in the air for legitimate debate. This isn't an issue about being "Churchill's bairns" but rather what, if any, meaning statehood has in today's world and whether the concept of self-reference really holds when such significant parts of our lives are determined by transnational behaviour. We live in a world where major military activity is carried out by international alliances; where trade and economic activity transcends ever less tariffed borders; where freedom of movement (at least in the West) is greater than it has been for centuries; where transnational bodies like the EU arrogate many of the "sovereign" powers that makes a state a state.

 

For me at least, we've reached the stage where what I call my state or my nation-state has no meaning. We are citizens of the world. What ultimately matters now is not notions of geographical self-identification, but of the effective and accountable distribution of power. There is no question that the existing distribution is unsatisfactory in both effectiveness and accountability. The idea of federalising power: distributing it at different territorial levels according to those two guiding principles, is what makes the decisions people take on our behalf matter.

 

Asymmetrical devolution of power from the UK into a quasi-federal system (including upwards to the EU as well as downwards into devolved parliaments/assemblies) was a hugely inelegant attempt to make good that ideal. Equally though, independence in and of itself doesn't answer the question asked. It just shoves that problem of power distribution one more link down the chain. Devolution shouldn't just have been about giving "Scotland" more control over its affairs. It was meant to be about Glaswegians, Teuchters, Fifers and Dundonians having a more tangible influence on issues very real and local and relevant to them previously controlled by elected representatives who largely represented different localities, different systems and different demands. It's no use vesting all power in Westminster when the needs and desires of the population in Basingstoke is so widly different from those in Ballater. Equally however, it's no use vesting all the power in Holyrood if the needs and desires of those in Easterhouses bear no relation to the needs and desires of those in Elgin.

 

Indeed it's possible that particular demands continue to transcend borders, with certain Scottish communities' interests having more in common with some English communities than other Scottish ones. Purely for example, the towns whose economies rely almost entirely on the placement of British Armed Forces bases, be they in Scotland or England, have a common interest which Leuchars and Kirkcaldy don't even really share. This is why we've come to realise that crude divisions along national lines aren't necessarily addressing the fundamental problem.

 

That's why I said earlier that we should be putting more of our time and energies into breaking down national barriers the world over rather than quibbling over where to put them. The meat of the real debate is one of how we separate powers. Devolution of virtually all power (taxes, drug laws, all bar defence issues, really) can ultimately achieve the same economic and social ends as "independence". Indeed most suggested models of independence seem to imply some sort of common defence agreement with the rump of the UK. The only substantive difference is autonomous international identity. The truth is "independence" in any international context is increasingly meaningless. The world is an interdependent beast, and if we spend too much time trying to distinguish ourselves along relatively arbitrary lines of nationhood, we risk missing the bigger picture.

 

For once I agree with most of what you say but for fear of creating another 100+ posts epic, will not post in any great detail. When looked at internationally, borders are invisible and should independence ever come like BJ I'm really indifferent; if it happens it happens and the people will have made a choice of sorts (the small % who bother voting!) There are dark sides to some forms of nationalism - thankfully not to the fore in the leadership of the SNP - but independence or not, trade would have to continue. So a whole lot of hoo ha over a flag and whilst still pledging allegiance to the Crown (didn't Eck lead the crowd off in a rousing version of the national anthem at the Edinburgh Military Tattoo when McConnell was poorly?).

 

The other serious point - touched upon but not analysed in detail (I'd end up in a game of ping pong with WJ with JB probably probably putting the jackboot in, quoting from his Gestapo handbook and threatening to invade from the East) is that the West of Scotland needs one heck of a lot of money to keep society stable. And look at how great things are just now! Even with cuts, employment in the public sector remains high (one in four) and this all requires tax payer funding. The debate here, of course, is why is this the case and I'd probably end up coming to metaphorical blows with some of my sparring partners on this DG whilst boring the a*** off many with lengthy posts.

[Meister Jag]

 

how many times, a joke with Honved from a previous thread.

 

would stalin have been better for you

 

Think Uncle Joe would have won the mouser war and you know that I prefer goatee beards! But deep down I think you've got a fondness for the wee man who had just the one haw maw

[jaggybunnet]

Think Uncle Joe would have won the mouser war and you know that I prefer goatee beards! But deep down I think you've got a fondness for the wee man who had just the one haw maw

 

[Meister Jag]

I am not a nationalist and I don't suffer from a Scottish cringe or "we are not good enough". I just don't see the point. We all live in the same island, we are a lot more similar with others than we like to admit and the examples of places like Belgium and Slovenia is rose tinted spectacles. They have all their own problems just like we do. It's a power grab mixed with anti-English sentiment. I don't even see the point in a Scottish Parliament, ill thought out and ill planned. Westminster had Scottish only laws and the Scottish Office had great powers and it could have been tweaked to improve. It was the romanticised polics of grieviance which continues to dominate Scottish politics.

 

At the end of the day three things seal it for me

1. European Union. Scotland would NOT be independent. It would be a very small nation in a large Euro bureucracy. London = Bad. Brussels = Good.

2. Credit Crunch. "The Arc of Prosperity" collapsed. Ireland, Iceland etc basket cases. Being part of a bigger economy helped us cope with a world financial crisis.

3. Nationalism. Don't like it. Never have, never will. People use it as a cloak to hide behind. We have 3 to 400 000 English people in Scotland. Probably the same figure of Scots in England. Why divide?

 

Reading this thread back-to-front and agree totally mate. Why bother?

[Meister Jag]

 

Aye okay mate, but I spiked my original post which gave directions to New Broomfield

[Woodstock Jag]

For once I agree with most of what you say

 

You should try it more often. I'm usually right.

[alx]

Changing the subject a wee bit. Obviously I'm in favour of independence, the argument is won and just needs some publicity. As an SNP member who's taken up some activism..... what we need is hard work. Us wee people, the troops, will be working our socks off more than ever. The SNP have always had a really splendid membership, but I honestly think that people will be surprised at the level of committment and hard work that will go in to this.

 

(apologies for the party political line, but its just that the subject makes it difficult to avoid)

[Meister Jag]

You should try it more often. I'm usually right.

 

You looking to start something? I spend hours on this DG providing free education and this is how you repay me. But to (probably badly) quote Voltaire: "you find that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road". Sums up our relationship Woody boy - the educator (think that will be me) and the pupil (most definitely you).

 

But to put this into a more contemporary context, Bob "patron saint of Jags fans" Marley summed it up when he sang: "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery... None but ourselves can free our minds." Think of that next time you're rolling one with your stoodent mates

[Meister Jag]

Changing the subject a wee bit. Obviously I'm in favour of independence, the argument is won and just needs some publicity. As an SNP member who's taken up some activism..... what we need is hard work. Us wee people, the troops, will be working our socks off more than ever. The SNP have always had a really splendid membership, but I honestly think that people will be surprised at the level of committment and hard work that will go in to this.

 

(apologies for the party political line, but its just that the subject makes it difficult to avoid)

 

Alx

 

At least you've got a party mate, but don't know about the "splendid" bit, I'd maybe go for "rabid". I mean, it wasn't that long ago that the SNP in Renfrewshire Council were trying to erect a statue to Elvis's grandad in the middle of Paisley. Apparently during one debate an SNP councillor turned up with a guitar and started blasting out "blue suede shoes". Okay, they got my vote, but I'm not exactly all there when it comes to matters political - read my back catalogue of ramblings and rantings and I'm sure you'll agree! No, the current SNP are a bit too mainstream for me. But still preferable to the Tories, IMO.

 

But it will be interesting to see where JB and WJ go with this one as they're clearly part of the Empire-loyalist faction on this DG. Not that I'm trying to stir it in any way.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Meister Jag

[jaggybunnet]

 

But it will be interesting to see where JB and WJ go with this one as they're clearly part of the Empire-loyalist faction on this DG. Not that I'm trying to stir it in any way.

 

[jaggybunnet]

Changing the subject a wee bit. Obviously I'm in favour of independence, the argument is won and just needs some publicity. As an SNP member who's taken up some activism..... what we need is hard work. Us wee people, the troops, will be working our socks off more than ever. The SNP have always had a really splendid membership, but I honestly think that people will be surprised at the level of committment and hard work that will go in to this.

 

(apologies for the party political line, but its just that the subject makes it difficult to avoid)

 

 

in your head maybe but that's about all, so which of these small nations are we to be like? is it southern Ireland or Iceland or any of the Balkans states? all dependent on hand outs from Europe.

 

just as i cant be positive that it would fail you cant be positive that it wont and at the moment i think it would, we would also have to prostitute ourselves to that lot in Europe for subsidies, no thanks.

 

have your referendum now, you will lose it and that's why salmond doesn't want to have it now.

 

has the snp a plan for independence if so can some one please post a link as i like to read a bit of fiction now and again.

[Woodstock Jag]

You looking to start something? I spend hours on this DG providing free education and this is how you repay me. But to (probably badly) quote Voltaire: "you find that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road". Sums up our relationship Woody boy - the educator (think that will be me) and the pupil (most definitely you).

 

But to put this into a more contemporary context, Bob "patron saint of Jags fans" Marley summed it up when he sang: "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery... None but ourselves can free our minds." Think of that next time you're rolling one with your stoodent mates

 

^^^

Trying too hard.

 

But it will be interesting to see where JB and WJ go with this one as they're clearly part of the Empire-loyalist faction on this DG. Not that I'm trying to stir it in any way.

 

Jaggybunnet and I almost entirely disagree on this issue. He thinks Scotland is too poor and too wee to do it's own thing. I think it's more than capable of looking after its own affairs. Indeed I subscribe to the "it makes **** all difference" principle, rooted in an internationalist perspective rather than one of nationhood and therefore completely counter to "Empire-loyalism".

 

But of course, you're shit stirring

[jaggybunnet]

^^^

Trying too hard.

 

 

 

Jaggybunnet and I almost entirely disagree on this issue. He thinks Scotland is too poor and too wee to do it's own thing. I think it's more than capable of looking after its own affairs. Indeed I subscribe to the "it makes **** all difference" principle, rooted in an internationalist perspective rather than one of nationhood and therefore completely counter to "Empire-loyalism".

 

But of course, you're shit stirring

 

 

no and if i gave that impression i am sorry, i just think we would be weaker as a stand alone nation but are stronger as a union that and i don't trust salmond

 

 

Edit: just read back my posts and never said that anyway, you picked up on what Honved implied not what i actually said

Edited September 4, 2011 by jaggybunnet