to start a new Scottish Indyref thread?

[FannyFifer]

Round 2 folks, ding ding!

What makes us so different from rUK, especially when we speak the same language and have a very similar mix of ethnicities and religions and are part of the same small island?

rainbowinmyroom Exciting! I can't wait to vote.

What makes us so different from rUK, especially when we speak the same language and have a very similar mix of ethnicities and religions and are part of the same small island?

Nothing major. It isn't about whether we're similar or not (for me, at least). It's because Scotland doesn't have a real say in how the UK is governed, which has been proven. That said, I think more places within other parts of rUK, such as Yorkshire, starting to push for devolution is a good thing.

Interesting but not surprising. When the Tories lose the forthcoming general election, perhaps something can be done about it.

We already live in a socialist country. We have considerable redistribution of income via tax. There are many European countries where welfare benefits and health care are dependent on previous employment, and supposedly socialist countries like Sweden where not working I stigmatised.

So what youre really arguing for is a different brand of socialism, with a different regime in place. And I'm convinced that regime has even m op re controlling, centralist tendencies and is at least as corrupt in places than tge current one. It also seems to tend more towards dumming down and incompetence.

Scotland has a say in proportion to its size. In fact, one could say that historically it has had more than its fair share as until devolution Scotland was intentionally overrepresented at Westminster. In recent years, it has provided a disproportionately large number of cabinet ministers - Brown - Cook - Reid - Darling - the list goes on.

Of course Scotland can't have UK affairs determined to its own preference. That is not surprising. It is just the same for Britain in the EU, as it would be for iScotland, if it joined.

Fannyfifer - all the more reason to get involved with Westminster.

I'm not defending the situation outlined in the article you quote - I'd be the last person to do that, coming from a poor household where I was the first person to go to university, on a full grant, but that's the unfortunate nature of employers; we all tend to employ people like ourselves. It's completely unfair. So speak out against it, get involved with british institutions and try to make it better for all of us. There's no guarantee that an independent Scotland wouldn't also have an over-representation of people in top jobs because 'their faces fit'.

Whereas I think that every scot who votes has the same say in how Britain is governed as every other voter.

I still don't think anyone has answered why an independent Scotland will be fairer, more equal etc. It's something that is often quoted yet rarely backed up by evidence, and generally those are that we will make decisions here. But why does that mean our society will be any fairer? Why do you believe Scotland will produce politicians who are any better than those that we have produced as part of the UK.,

But what will you do about the one in five Scots who voted Conservative in the last GE, and what about the democratic deficit Tha ensues they are only represented by one MP? Will you ban or "discourage" people from choosing their own political views, because that is not the majority view? Or will you simply continue to insult, denigrate and abuse them in this supposedly fairer Scotland. Which sounds awfully intolerant to me.

You could pick any group of 58 constituencies that didn't vote conservative and claim that they don't have a say in Westminster.

With the current coalition the constituencies who voted lib-dem - including 11 Scottish constituencies arguably have more representation than the labour voting constituencies.

No, it's not a nationalist argument. It's an argument for self-determination and democratic principles. It's the argument that no-one is better placed to govern a country than the people who live in it. The UN recognises the principle of self-determination.

Was it rampant nationalism for America to break away from British rule, or for Australia, Canada, India, and other countries across the world to become independent? I don't think there are many people who think that countries are better ruled by other countries than by themselves.

The central question is: why should Scotland not govern itself like other countries do? Why should we not be able to make our own decisions?

The question implies that Scotland is a colony, which it isn't and never has been.

So how can you reassure me that an independent Scotland wouldn't be a country where tge government tries to control every aspect of your life? Because that's what its legislative output indicates. When the White Paper doesn't even bother to address its lack of constitutional checks and balances and tge Scottish Government steadfastly ignores the rife corruption and mismanagement by City of Edinburgh Council?

The question implies that Scotland is a colony, which it isn't and never has been.

Its a country primarily governed by another country. Surely it is better for countries to govern themselves?

Of course Scotland can't have UK affairs determined to its own preference. That is not surprising.

That's fair enough. So why is it so wrong to have a referendum? I would support any country within the UK being independent, to better govern its own citizens, if that's what the people in that country wanted.

But the examples you quote are of massive geographical areas divided by uk by oceans, with different climates and in many cases populations who speak different languages and have different religions. And have different climates. It's not a true comparison.

And many Scottish people don't see their scottishness as significant enough to require self-determination. Some Scottish people would class themselves as British first and Scottish secondly.

If Scotland was very different from rUK then I would have see the point of being governed by the people who live in that country - but nobody can make a case for any significant differences.

And we have a devolved parliament as well as representation in Westminster.

So how can you reassure me that an independent Scotland wouldn't be a country where tge government tries to control every aspect of your life?

Of course we cant! There are no guarantees whichever way we vote is. The point is an independent Scotland will be fully in charge of its own government and policies, for better or worse.

But to reply to your question more fully, I'd say that none of the other examples are historic nation states. Only Scotland is. And all the others were a considerable distance away, which made self-governance obvious. Scotland, by contrast, is very much an integrated part of the UK at present. Given that the direction of world government is directed towards integration, the fact that Scotland might want to split off from the democratic state that occupies the island it's on is more about separate culture.. separate traditions.. separate history.. different politics...... nationalism in short.

But the examples you quote are of massive geographical areas divided by uk by oceans, with different climates and in many cases populations who speak different languages and have different religions. And have different climates. It's not a true comparison.

And this is one of the points that Yes and No will never agree on. Yes think Scotland is a country and should therefore govern itself. No sees Scotland as a region which should be governed from WM.

The SNP got a majority in the Scottish parliament so a referendum was granted. (and four years later the SNP got round to holding one,).

Fair enough up to a point, given that only the Scottish electorate gets to vote- but I hope the vote will be to stay in rUK.

Surely it is better for countries to govern themselves?

Yes, if that's what they want. But the question is whether this is a nationalist argument.

It's the argument that no-one is better placed to govern a country than the people who live in it.

Still implying Scotland is at present just a colony. We do have elections you know.

And like others I'm utterly unpersuaded that President Eck could do or achieve anything which he couldn't already do using existing power as First Minister Eck if he wanted. But of course he doesn't; does he as that doesn't suit his agenda..

That's interesting. My friends (down here in SE England) see Scotland very much as a country, not a region.

I think iScotland will be fairer because our votes won't be proportionate to our size in a Government which is influenced mainly by voters in England, purely England is the largest country in rUK. London alone has a bigger population than Scotland, I don't think that's fair. It definitely isn't - as proven by the fact that had no Scottish votes been cast in 14/18 General Elections, the outcome would not have been affected.

I assume that will be taken as anti-English, but it's not. It would be the same if Wales was the biggest country in the UK, the one with the biggest population will have more chance of getting their views across.

It will be fair because people actually living and working in Scotland will decide how it's governed (and I don't mean just people born in Scotland, but anyone of any nationality who resides here) - not politicians (regardless of their nationality) who (mostly) live and work in London and have never necessarily even set foot in Scotland.

I don't think free prescriptions and free education will last long in the UK. The sensible thing for WM to do would be to gradually introduce those benefits to the rest of the UK. But they won't, they'll most likely ensure it's taken away from Scotland to make things more equal. They've already announced they will cut the block grant, therefore forcing Holyrood to up taxes. A No vote isn't sounding too great either.

I think it's fairer to say that No means not assuming that independence needs to be the only option for a "country" (how do you define that, by the way, in a way that is not nationalist?). I think this is a perfectly sensible position to take, particularly when the state your country is part of has existed for 3 centuries - 4 if you include the Union of Crowns - and has endured this long, with all the shared values that means.

The alternative is not just to secede, but also to keep out of any international federations that pool sovereignty. I assume that you want iScotland to be part of the EU? I certainly want the UK (with or without Scotland) to remain part of the EU.