Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 12,975
Growing up I used to think the idea of an independent North would be great to get away from Westminster - so I definitely sympathise on that point with Yes supporters. Now I've grown out of immaturity, I realise you only need basic nouse to understand that Westminster being placed in London does not mean MPs represent southerners. The self-interested politicians I and the majority of Scottish Yes voters loathe are obviously from all over Britain: Tony Blair - Scottish, Gordon Brown - Scottish - it's very naive to think the same ilk wouldn't soon bring the same bland, non-public serving politics in the theoretically independent Scotland.
So I do very much understand the snap temptation of a Scot to vote Yes however the more I've had to think about it and the more Scots Yes comments I've seen online, the more I find myself growing livid by it all and the more I see the extreme Yes proponents as traitorous. One such comment I saw was a Scot berating RT for having George Galloway on supporting May's stance with 'I thought you trumpeted the outsider and supported the oppressed...' Oppressed!? Scotland has more special benefits than anywhere else in the U.K. with devolved powers such as tax powers and uni fees - what has the North got (as much a victim of London-centricity)? Nothing! There have been atrocities and massacres by the people in the seat of British power or their military all over Britain including Manchester (1819), Newport (1839), London (1768), Bolton (1644) etc. etc. Hence it's blindingly obvious the problem is not Scots vs. English or Northern British vs. Southern British, it is the public vs. selfish politicians and elite - the public needs to do away with these sweeping generalisations as it's a very narrow-minded perception.
One of the reasons this debate is being had is because there is a problem with interpretation of the language used in the name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Notice the wording is 'Great Britain,' no use of "Scotland." The U.K. is not a union of countries such as the EU to opt out of, it is a single kingdom (a single country) - they could have just called it Scotland since the Kingdom of Scotland inherited the Kingdom of England. In 1707 Scottish parliament democratically voted to dissolve the status of Scotland as a sovereign country - 310 years ago! Perhaps the older generations that swung the NO vote last time was because, living through two world wars they understood the values and unity of this island. The tribes of Britain were divided but understood that they were countrymen, even when the Anglo-Saxons invaded, Welsh, Northerners and lowland Scots called themselves Cymry (countrymen). Having studied so much of our history and seeing the natural progression to a united Britain (that any "Englishman," "Scot" or "Welshman" would have sought under their name) it angers me that people would throw away a 1664 years struggle (if you consider it from the Roman invasion) based on some bullshit (false) notion of Scots history/nationalism stoked by the likes of Hollywood films such as Braveheart (inaccurately written by an American with a romanticised view) or the SNP's appropriation of highland culture to the whole of Scotland. It was Scotland that invaded England first, 80 years before England invaded Scotland! Scottish lowland and highland clans also viciously fought each other over British political matters so Scotland neither has the historical unity the SNP would have Scots think.
The lowlands of Scotland have an intrinsic history with Northern England, through both Briton and Angle kingdoms (this does not mean the majority of the population were Angles - the Anglo-Saxon genocide story has also proven to be false). The SNP present Scots Gaelic as the native language of Scotland - this was brought by the Dál Riada occupying the western fringe of the Scottish highlands - the gaels merged with the Picts (there is debate about whether the Scots or Picts won dominance) - so Scotland has neither been united in Gaelic culture. Don't forget Scots language brought by the Angles and which came to be spoken by half of Scotland. There is no difference in genetic addition to Scotland, England or Wales over the history of this island. Based on all this, I see absolutely no historical basis for Scotland to have a claim to independence more so than any other past kingdom's territory in Britain - the arguments for Scottish independence are not remotely equatable to Ireland's.
Regarding the economic and difference in voting pattern arguments - it is this behaviour of selfishness to increase their lot at the expense of others (just because London has isn't an excuse) that forms the same (lack of) principles of a dishonourable traitor, which is why I go as far to consider that view for the extreme Yes supporters. Though Sturgeon is merely doing her job within her party to take the opportunity of Brexit, I don't trust that she doesn't put the temptation of being stamped on the forefront of Scottish history above proper principles. I doubt her or Salmond know Scotland's history at all well (or they hide it well as they would know it doesn't aid their cause) and I do not remotely trust people that don't know the history of this island to make such a significant decision on the future of it. It's not the sort of thing to be reversed within a few 100 years after, particularly with the current global society - this is why the whole idea of Scottish independence has began to anger me so much. Are we going to have Cornwall shouting for independence in 100 years because they reconstructed their celtic language and began thinking they were so different to the rest of us?
The answer is not abandoning your comrade/countryman to just better your lot but finding the best solution for everyone - which I see as complete domestic devolution for N.I., Scotland, the North, Wales, the Midlands and the South to fairly represent their domestic concerns, governed by a government council (equal representation of these areas) for international and other matters of national importance.
Good post, not sure I agree with it in its entirety. But a very good read. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.