Should Scotland be an independent country?

calling Tony Blair a Scot is like calling Chris Froome English. But whatever, the whole country should be held accountable to two Westminster-based career politicians (with a huge majority of the vote across the UK, which again, removing Scotland's seats from the equation wouldn't have influence the overall election result) just because you seem to think that they 'architected' New Labour.

Actually it's a lot more like calling Froome a Kenyan. Blair was born in Scotland and educated in Scotland. He's Scottish.

And no, I'm going to give up writing things if you're not going to read them and just invent things with a quite breathtaking liberty of interpretation (clearly displaying your own prejudices there). I am saying that bringing up the policies of two Scotsmen is useless as evidence for an argument that Scottish policies will be different because they are Scottish.

Is any more like to be better than. Skoblesque dialect. Who is telling you not to write things? Are you feeling set upon? I'm just quoting your own words, which display an enormously self-evident amount of prejudice.

Tony Blair spending a few months in Scotland as a baby, then being educated at one of the most exclusive private schools in the UK that happens to be in Edinburgh, does not a Scottish person make, but if it makes you feel better. Blair and Brown's policies were not made 'as Scotsmen' for the Scottish, and also not made in the context of an Independent Scotland, so what's your point exactly?

You make a huge presumption about Scottish foreign policy, based on what? The desire for self-determination is not akin to telling your neighbours 'to fuck off', especially when it makes no economic or political sense, so what are you really wanting to say?

Scotland currently has neither the diplomatic service or control to be fully international in a meaningful sense. Other countries negotiate with the foreign office. Which is at Westminster.

Your assumptions display your prejudice quite clearly.

Becoming a separate state from England is going to mean England is a foreign country, just as the Republic of Ireland is now. Therefore policies towards England will cease to be domestic and become foreign. That's not an assumption, it's an inevitable fact of international law.

Leaving the union is tantamount to telling the other members of it to fuck off. That's not an assumption, more a logical conclusion, and it would be parochial. Cosying up to Scandinavia is Ali's assumption, not mine.

Your assumption that I am a typical pro-union Englishman displays your prejudice though, and then some. I'd actually vote yes to independence if I was allowed a vote. Sadly my grandmother moved to England before I was born. Sorry about that accident of birth.

Fettes does not stop being Scottish just because it is posh.

@Brun - Alcohol minimum pricing looks likely.

Blair and Brown's policies were not made 'as Scotsmen' for the Scottish, and also not made in the context of an Independent Scotland, so what's your point exactly?

No, they were made for the UK, in the context of the UK. That does not stop some Scots from believing or claiming that they were made for England in the context of England. (That they were made in a UK context, including Scotland, further weakens the notion that iScottish policies would inevitably be different.)

You make a huge presumption about Scottish foreign policy, based on what? The desire for self-determination is not akin to telling your neighbours 'to fuck off', especially when it makes no economic or political sense, so what are you really wanting to say?

I've told you. That Ali could have picked a better example. That's all.

Scotland currently has neither the diplomatic service or control to be fully international in a meaningful sense. Other countries negotiate with the foreign office. Which is at Westminster.

An independent Scotland would have to develop them, and fast. Plans will have been drawn up. Do you really think that one state can use the political offices of a different state, or that they would want to?

The YES vote should have just used this as their campaign

"Some hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a SHITE state of affairs to be in"

Ha!

Leaving the union is tantamount to telling the other members of it to fuck off. That's not an assumption, more a logical conclusion, and it would be parochial.

Really? Have you been watching the debates? If you're going to perceive a desire for self determination that way then there's little I can say to you, but it's not something I've heard from the SNP, in fact, quite the contrary.

Cosying up to Scandinavia is Ali's assumption, not mine.

Is establishing good diplomatic relations with other Independent countries of a similar size and close geographical proximity not common sense? Why is that parochial? Scotland has had very good relations with Norway and Sweden for centuries, with trading routes and our earlier industrialisation meaning investors assisting in theirs. The Universities, hospitals and social housing in Gothenburg were in large part set up and funded by Scots philanthropists who had settled there, for example. Indeed, if there is any nation that you could argue has always had a very international outlook it is Scotland. Or is it only 'not parochial' to be the USA's stooge and invade Middle Eastern countries on falsified intelligence? The SNP have intimated a desire to be in the EU, to join NATO-me might not have a permanent seat on the UN security council but fuck, why would we want it?

Your assumption that I am a typical pro-union Englishman displays your prejudice though, and then some. I'd actually vote yes to independence if I was allowed a vote. Sadly my grandmother moved to England before I was born. Sorry about that accident of birth.

I'm just quoting your own words, I don't see any assumptions being made on my part. It's hilarious reading comments boards and seeing this pervasive, strangely twisted logic from the English that not wanting to be part of the UK is somehow a personal affront, and everything about your remarks suggests a knee-jerk emotional response that is founded on this bias, such as saying that because 'New Labour' was fronted by two Scots, this somehow means Independence will be no different. It makes it hard to take you seriously to be honest.

True, but having lived near it, I know that it is very English, as well as being posh.

Re: Bliar's supposed Scottishness and Labour having any regard for meaningful devolution of power to Scotland from westminster:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GfbfldSrJ-0&feature=youtu.be

Blair will take an interest in Scotland when and only when Salmond declares himself dictator for life and starts boiling opponents alive in fish batter. And only then if he gets offered a huge wedge by Salmond on how to defend it.

@uber_gruber what you are responding to is your own interpretation of what I wrote.

I'm just quoting your own words, I don't see any assumptions being made on my part.

is given the lie by this

It's hilarious reading comments boards and seeing this pervasive, strangely twisted logic from the English that not wanting to be part of the UK is somehow a personal affront, and everything about your remarks suggests a knee-jerk emotional response that is founded on this bias

Sorry, but nothing I wrote says that or was written in that vein. You're not "just quoting my own words". You're adding to them, and replacing them completely when it suits you, for whatever reason. Perhaps your own personal bias and knee-jerk emotional responses?

Is establishing good diplomatic relations with other Independent countries of a similar size and close geographical proximity not common sense? Why is that parochial?

Yes of course it is common sense.
It is also parochial. Why? Precisely because they are geographically close, and of a similar size.
It is especially parochial when (and I'm possibly misinterpreting Tariq Ali's implication here) it is done instead of establishing or retaining good relationships with a more general spread of other countries. The EU is parochial. Nato is. The Commonwealth is.

such as saying that because 'New Labour' was fronted by two Scots, this somehow means Independence will be no different. It makes it hard to take you seriously to be honest.

OK, I'm only going to try this once more, and then I am going to give up and leave you to your ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.

I
did
not
say
anything
of
the
sort.

I said that:
Ali appears to be asserting that Scottish foreign policy would be different seemingly solely and simply because it is Scottish. He certainly made no other attempt at explaining his theory. Presumably because it is made by Scotsmen and that will somehow be different. Again, no idea how he comes to that conclusion. Are you with me so far? I may be mistaken, but as he's offered no other explanation, run with me.
Now he offers one shred of justification for this extraordinary claim. That the alternative to this world-view is that offered by New Labour. That of bombing the middle east on trumped up 'evidence'. (Apparently Ali feels that there's no middle ground, just those two approaches to international politics.) So far I'm merely paraphrasing Ali.
Now we get to my bit. I think he meant to say 'this Scottish policy good - this English policy bad' but then he credited New Labour with the bad, 'English' policy, and New Labour - indeed the Labour Party as a whole - are not English. If he wishes to demonstrate that this is good policy because it is Scottish, then Ali could scarcely have picked a worse example of a bad foreign policy than one he himself blames New Labour (i.e Blair and Brown) for; following his logic to its ultimate conclusion is bad because it is Scottish.
I am not saying 'Nice to scandinavia bad, Bombing Iraq good' no matter how much you want to believe that. Neither am I saying that independence will be no different (although lets be honest, there is scant reason to believe it will be. But there is hope, and maybe hope will be enough.)
All I am saying is that in one way his evidence cancels out the very argument it was invoked to support and thus it was bad evidence. We end up back where we all started.
Now I may be entirely wrong about everything I interpreted from his article, and maybe it was hacked to bits by a sub-editor, but that is what I was commenting on - his poor debating skill - and not the actual substance of his initial claim.

I'm still laughing over #sweatyspring - that has NOT gone down well at all on my Faceache page!

You're the one taking the wilfully reductive approach of making the whole argument about the English, contextualising international outlook solely on a 'fuck our neighbours' premise, and ridiculing Ali saying we'd seek closer relations with out northern neighbours when it makes perfect sense and dismissing it as 'parochial' as if being closer to Scandinavia somehow means we'll not be able to pursue relations with other countries, join the EU, etc

Everything you've said has been either disingenuous or inept backpedalling to try and get around your own initial stance, first by changing it to 'some Scots' then making the blanket statement that iScotland's policies are not going to be better because 'Brown and Blair were Scottish' so... ?

Finally, it's now not about you saying that we're telling the rUK to fuck off, but you were questioning Ali's 'debating skill.' It really doesn't come across like that, and again, I fail to see the ad hominem attacks or straw men arguments when, silly me, I've actually addressed what you have written.

Yet another reason to vote 'Yes' - the financial services industry are scaremongering now;

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/10/scottish-independence-create-mortgage-drought

Ali appears to be asserting that Scottish foreign policy would be different seemingly solely and simply because it is Scottish.
(or made for by a Scottish parliament, in consultation with the Scottish people rather than by London-based politicians for the UK as a whole?)

He certainly made no other attempt at explaining his theory (this is your theory now, because you're putting your own spin on it) .

Presumably because it is made by Scotsmen and that will somehow be different (your presumption, again, reducing it to an issue of nationality, rather than political structure and determination, which is decisions taken by an independent entity, that better suit its own interests as opposed to its larger neighbour) .

Again, no idea how he comes to that conclusion (he didn't, you did).

Are you with me so far? I may be mistaken, but as he's offered no other explanation, run with me. (do I need to spell out to you again, you are making it exclusively about 'just because it's Scottish it's going to be different' when it's really about 'it's a decision taken for Scotland's interests, not the UK's, and whether the end result is different or not, it will be our choice for better or worse)

Now he offers one shred of justification for this extraordinary claim. That the alternative to this world-view is that offered by New Labour. That of bombing the middle east on trumped up 'evidence'. (Apparently Ali feels that there's no middle ground, just those two approaches to international politics. (He says nothing of the sort)) So far I'm merely paraphrasing Ali. (no, you're bastardising his words to try and compensate for a total lack of integrity to your argument. )

Now we get to my bit. I think he meant to say (he didn't though, again, reflecting your determination to make it an issue of nationality) 'this Scottish policy good - this English policy bad (do you mean UK?) ' but then he credited New Labour with the bad, 'English' (UK?) policy, and New Labour - indeed the Labour Party as a whole - are not English (finally, the penny drops for you) .

If he wishes to demonstrate that this is good policy because it is Scottish, then Ali could scarcely have picked a worse example of a bad foreign policy than one he himself blames New Labour (i.e Blair and Brown) for; following his logic to its ultimate conclusion is bad because it is Scottish. (Again, you try to make the content of the argument that 'Scots are better')
I am not saying 'Nice to scandinavia bad, Bombing Iraq good' (no, you're saying pursuing relations with Scandinavia is parochial after saying that Scotland would foster these relations over any with the UK) no matter how much you want to believe that.

Neither am I saying that independence will be no different (although lets be honest, there is scant reason to believe it will be (you spend all that effort trying to portray yourself as unbiased or objective and then go and write that. tsk). But there is hope, and maybe hope will be enough.)

All I am saying is that in one way his evidence cancels out the very argument it was invoked to support and thus it was bad evidence. We end up back where we all started. Ummmm... your argument is very circular, yes.

Now I may be entirely wrong about everything I interpreted from his article... (everything you interpreted in this article is made from the same short sighted vantage that this is about Scotland vs England, instead of Scots having fully devolved powers from the UK and Westminster over their own affairs. It's risible that you devote so much energy to trying to talk your way around it then conclude with this "Neither am I saying that independence will be no different (although lets be honest, there is scant reason to believe it will be.")

I give up discussing this with you.
You made up your mind ages ago, you are completely wrong, but no amount of effort on my part will persuade you to actually read what I wrote and respond to that like a grown adult, rather than filter it through your own prejudices, adding whatever content suits you, before going on to construct a bunch of straw men arguments, attack either things I never said or just attack me personally rather than the argument I make.

Good day to you sir.

@TariqAli's actual words:

"Two processes combined to reawaken Scotland. The depression of the 30s left a deep mark on the country, and the end of empire that followed a decade later after another war created the basis for new thinking. Until 1945 the Labour party, born in Scotland, had been pledged to Scottish home rule. Clement Attlee's reforms, it was thought, made the idea redundant, and certainly few in Scotland thought otherwise. But the emergence of a new nationalism was the result of a democratic deficit.

The bulk of Scotland voted against Margaret Thatcher, and her brutal dismantling of the 1945 compact shook the union's foundations. When Tony Blair followed suit, belittling the Scottish parliament as little more than a local council, the haemorrhaging of Labour votes began. The real tartan Tories in the Scottish parliament today are the visionless careerists of New Labour, incapable of producing a leader with even one-fifth of the qualities that distinguished the late Donald Dewar. Small wonder that support for independence is strongest among working people.

The notion that an independent Scotland will be parochial is risible. The "internationalism" of New Labour and its coalition lookalikes essentially means subordinating the entire British state to the interests of the US. They have made Britain a vassal state: on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on the gathering of intelligence. An independent Scotland could be far more internationalist and would benefit a great deal from links to both Scandinavia and states in other continents."

-It's very clear that he is discussing notions of sovereignty and is able to differentiate between the old Scottish-born Labour movement and 'New Labour' which had neither interest in Scottish independence, nor respect for devolution.

He also makes a clear distinction between the career politicians in Holyrood and the people most likely to support Independence, which are the working people. You seem totally and willfully unable to interpret this as anything but an attack solely on the English, when he doesn't even mention them in anything other than a historical context of union and empire, and clearly highlights both New Labour under Blair's role in continuing Tory policy.

Picking up the ball and going home are we?

Enjoy your splendid isolation and parochial mindset while you're at it.

I
did
not
say
anything
of
the
sort.

I can't work out the acrostic in that one. Is it something in Scots? :)

BQ has to get himself to Easts now. Don't you dare interfere with a real ale-drinking Englishman's Wednesday evening's entertainment. :)

Rode the length of Scotland on a LEJOG last week. Pretty much every lamppost had a YES billboard on it for the entire length of the country! Clearly a very well funded campaign.
I'm not English and my girlfriend is Scottish (and thinks Alex Salmond is a pervy twat because he once groped her mum) but your average Scotsman doesn't really seem to hold the English in high regard!

@bothwell you're not from Bothwell Bridge are you?

Has this been resolved yet?
Oh sorry another week of this fascinating debate
I blame the OP must be in Scotland or something, never trust anyone with jock blood