5 ms·

I think you're really underestimating how tenuous the UK's claim on Scotland really is. Frankly, there is no model in which the UK deploys military assets to fo

by dnomad 8y ago

I think you're really underestimating how tenuous the UK's claim on Scotland really is. Frankly, there is no model in which the UK deploys military assets to forcefully retain Scotland. This would almost certainly delegitamise the entire "Great Britain" concept. Catalonia is different because it, frankly, was never really an independent nation. And while Spain recognizes a certain autonomy it does not grant anything like an independent legal system. That said the case of Catalonia is interesting. There's nothing quite like it in France. France has never even entertained autonomy, instead emphasizing at every opportunity the "supremacy" of the Parisian government. There's probably a lesson to be learned from Spain and the UK which may have unwittingly given "hope" to these separatist movements.

isostatic 8y ago
I think you're really underestimating how tenuously the UK's claim on Scotland really is. A Scottish king took over the English throne in 1603. Blame him. I see no reason that should a sustained majority (so 3 million plus Scots or 4 million plus Catalonians) be in favour of independence, that independence shouldn't happen (In an orderly structured fashion ensuring the rights of citizens on both sides are kept)
- mrec 8y ago
  That didn't create the UK - it was a personal union, with two independent countries who happened to have the same monarch. Great Britain as a combined state didn't appear for another century, via the 1707 Act of Union.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Which was agreed by the Scottish parliament. Either way, nobody involved in those decisions is alive now, so it's all ancient history, as is the French invasion of the island in 1066. I'm not sure how (the op) can complain that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's claim on Scotland is "tenuous", and more than "it's claim" on Norfolk, Kent, or Birmingham. If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Scotland really want to be a separate country, that's fine. If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Norfolk really want to be a separate country, that's fine. If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Hull really want to be a separate country, that's fine. There's no "claim" other than we agree as a democracy to band together to govern us, and protect us, and enable us to live our lives. If that doesn't work out for a given region, that's fine. * edit -- corrected who it's aimed at
    - mrec 8y ago
      > I'm not sure how you can complain that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's claim on Scotland is "tenuous" I'm not "complaining" anything of the sort. I think you have me mixed up with another commenter.
21 8y ago
I don't know much about UK politics, but I thought UK did use the military to prevent Northern Ireland from splitting off. But I agree that in $CURRENT_YEAR military intervention against Scotland would be highly unpopular even in England.
- isostatic 8y ago
  > I thought UK did use the military to prevent Northern Ireland from splitting off. You may be thinking of the UK military being in Northern Ireland to try to keep the peace from a population that were attempting to kill each other in the 70s? However if you're talking about the 1916-1922 period: Some people in Dublin declared independence in the "Easter Uprising" (in the middle of a war) over 100 years ago, it was dealt with by the UK military. The second attempt in 1918 was far better -- there was a massive democratic will for independence expressed through the ballot box. The UK government (100 years ago) resisted this independence initially, which was wrong, just as wrong as Spain resiting Catalan independence. Eventually the UK government relented, and granted independence to Ireland after free and democratic elections in 1921, when 98% of the voters in what's now called "Ireland" voted for the pro-indepedence Sinn Fein (it was unopposed in almost every constituency) However in the north, many residents did not want to become independent from the UK. The election there returned 67% in favour of the unionist party. As such independence was offered to the entire island, but the north could opt out by having it's parliament ask to (through it's democratically elected parliament). They did - the day after the Irish Free state came into being. So people who lived in each area got to choose where they wanted to be, and all was well. That's how it should be for Scotland, and Catalonia. The messy business of unpicking a country began (including a brief 'civil' war), but by 1937 the Irish government in Dublin ratified a constitution. This constitution claimed sovereignty over the north as well, despite the population in the North not wanting that, which wasn't exactly a good way to make friends and influence people. It was only in 1998 that Dublin agreed to remove this claim from their constitution, and agree that whether the north should be moved from Britain to Ireland was a matter for people who live in the north (and indeed one for those in the south, who would have to agree to take them)

by dnomad 8y ago

isostatic 8y ago

I think you're really underestimating how tenuously the UK's claim on Scotland really is. A Scottish king took over the English throne in 1603. Blame him. I see no reason that should a sustained majority (so 3 million plus Scots or 4 million plus Catalonians) be in favour of independence, that independence shouldn't happen (In an orderly structured fashion ensuring the rights of citizens on both sides are kept)

mrec 8y ago
That didn't create the UK - it was a personal union, with two independent countries who happened to have the same monarch. Great Britain as a combined state didn't appear for another century, via the 1707 Act of Union.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Which was agreed by the Scottish parliament. Either way, nobody involved in those decisions is alive now, so it's all ancient history, as is the French invasion of the island in 1066. I'm not sure how (the op) can complain that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's claim on Scotland is "tenuous", and more than "it's claim" on Norfolk, Kent, or Birmingham. If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Scotland really want to be a separate country, that's fine. If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Norfolk really want to be a separate country, that's fine. If a clear and sustained majority of the people living in Hull really want to be a separate country, that's fine. There's no "claim" other than we agree as a democracy to band together to govern us, and protect us, and enable us to live our lives. If that doesn't work out for a given region, that's fine. * edit -- corrected who it's aimed at
  - mrec 8y ago
    > I'm not sure how you can complain that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's claim on Scotland is "tenuous" I'm not "complaining" anything of the sort. I think you have me mixed up with another commenter.

21 8y ago

I don't know much about UK politics, but I thought UK did use the military to prevent Northern Ireland from splitting off. But I agree that in $CURRENT_YEAR military intervention against Scotland would be highly unpopular even in England.

isostatic 8y ago
> I thought UK did use the military to prevent Northern Ireland from splitting off. You may be thinking of the UK military being in Northern Ireland to try to keep the peace from a population that were attempting to kill each other in the 70s? However if you're talking about the 1916-1922 period: Some people in Dublin declared independence in the "Easter Uprising" (in the middle of a war) over 100 years ago, it was dealt with by the UK military. The second attempt in 1918 was far better -- there was a massive democratic will for independence expressed through the ballot box. The UK government (100 years ago) resisted this independence initially, which was wrong, just as wrong as Spain resiting Catalan independence. Eventually the UK government relented, and granted independence to Ireland after free and democratic elections in 1921, when 98% of the voters in what's now called "Ireland" voted for the pro-indepedence Sinn Fein (it was unopposed in almost every constituency) However in the north, many residents did not want to become independent from the UK. The election there returned 67% in favour of the unionist party. As such independence was offered to the entire island, but the north could opt out by having it's parliament ask to (through it's democratically elected parliament). They did - the day after the Irish Free state came into being. So people who lived in each area got to choose where they wanted to be, and all was well. That's how it should be for Scotland, and Catalonia. The messy business of unpicking a country began (including a brief 'civil' war), but by 1937 the Irish government in Dublin ratified a constitution. This constitution claimed sovereignty over the north as well, despite the population in the North not wanting that, which wasn't exactly a good way to make friends and influence people. It was only in 1998 that Dublin agreed to remove this claim from their constitution, and agree that whether the north should be moved from Britain to Ireland was a matter for people who live in the north (and indeed one for those in the south, who would have to agree to take them)