An independent Scotland?

[ronmcd]

I was mocked when I said that the worst of the nationalists might even start a bombing campaign, if the vote was lost.
Dunno why, because morons are everywhere, and Scotland of course has it's share.

Sorry, the idea deserves mocking.

[Rum]

People do violent things for totally shitty and unforgivable reasons. I would not rule it out.

[mistermack]

I don't think the Basques were fighting about religion.
Just a very similar outdated concept called nationhood.

To be honest, I would have mocked someone who told me that football fans would be sending parcel bombs, over a football rivalry. There is religion mixed in with that rubbish as well, but it's mostly just the moronic them-vs-us mentality that we all have inherited a measure of.

[ronmcd]

People do violent things for totally shitty and unforgivable reasons. I would not rule it out.

Nutters a year or two ago sent nail bombs to the manager of Celtic football club. There was some lone idiot nationalist in the 80's who sent some sort of package to someone I believe. So nutters doing violent things? Sure. But the difference is there is no community which a lone nutter would represent in committing violence related to the referendum, or it's result. The NI comparison just doesn't stand up.

Frankly, I will not let the lie go unchallenged that Scotland would be split, violently or otherwise, by the result of the referendum. It won't happen. But there is no doubt that fear of violence will be one of the more disturbing forms of fearmongering we will hear in Scotland over the next 2 years. Which is why it is important to point out it has no basis in fact.

[Audley Strange]

@Ronmcd

Thing is Ron, while there may not be any correlation, I can guarantee that some sectarian scumcunts would be extremely agitated by independence. Now that might only be a couple of thousand of unionist criminal morons, however there is not a major difference between them here and in Belfast. I am on one of the main roads for the Orange Wank every year and the march itself is not the problem, it is the vile offensive violent inbred genetic slurry that drags along in its wake, that ally themselves with people like the UVF that could very easily cause problems in the event of an independence vote.

I'm not saying it's definite, but I would not be surprised and I think it is too serious a concern to just dismiss utterly. There was after an old firm game a couple of years back, riots in Belfast after rangers got beat. The tensions here in the surrounding area between Ibrox and Parkhead had been ugly for weeks so the cops put out a show of force. Many of the Rangers fans smuggled themselves onto the away fans coaches and had organised ferry tickets to go over and cause problems there, many of those arrested were Glaswegians, some of whom I know (not friends btw).

Those cunts would have absolutely no problem with terrorism.

[mistermack]

People do violent things for totally shitty and unforgivable reasons. I would not rule it out.

Nutters a year or two ago sent nail bombs to the manager of Celtic football club. There was some lone idiot nationalist in the 80's who sent some sort of package to someone I believe. So nutters doing violent things? Sure. But the difference is there is no community which a lone nutter would represent in committing violence related to the referendum, or it's result. The NI comparison just doesn't stand up.

Frankly, I will not let the lie go unchallenged that Scotland would be split, violently or otherwise, by the result of the referendum. It won't happen. But there is no doubt that fear of violence will be one of the more disturbing forms of fearmongering we will hear in Scotland over the next 2 years. Which is why it is important to point out it has no basis in fact.

Nobody said it was likely.
But you're trying to say it won't happen. You don't know that. You can't know that.
And people have done it before. And will do it again.
Probably not Scotland.
But definitely possible.
In any case, how could pointing out that it is possible, favour a no vote?
You've lost me there.

[Rum]

By definition violence is irrational. It seems to be like water - it flows and finds the cracks and seeps in.

[Audley Strange]

Could a moderator please put this post back into this thread, it was pertinent, not part of a derail. If you want you can edit out the first line.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 2#p1301192

[ronmcd]

I don't think the Basques were fighting about religion.
Just a very similar outdated concept called nationhood.

To be honest, I would have mocked someone who told me that football fans would be sending parcel bombs, over a football rivalry. There is religion mixed in with that rubbish as well, but it's mostly just the moronic them-vs-us mentality that we all have inherited a measure of.

It's a little like comparing an organised knife-wielding gang to a 5 year old who stabs himself at the kitchen table. Basque seperatists (the correct usage of "seperatists" to my mind) have decades of history of political and violent struggle, from their perspective. Scotland? There is no history of violent struggle or oppression, the Scottish National Party have pushed independence for decades and those who support independence are democrats.

There is no angry violent aspect to the Scottish independence movement, it just doesn't exist. You will find the same level of and support for violence in Scottish independence movement as the anti EU movement in the Tory party.

At the risk of going all Red Celt on you guys, I find the suggestion genuinely offensive and disturbing. It's a dreadful smear on what is currently the most progressive left of centre democratic movement in UK politics.

[John_fi_Skye]

Am I not right in saying there was a wee bit of interest in the possibility of violent struggle for Scottish independence - maybe in the 50s? I think I remember hearing that the spooks in Whitehall were worried it could go like Ireland in 1917. But it didn't.

[ronmcd]

In any case, how could pointing out that it is possible, favour a no vote?
You've lost me there.

Scottish Labour politicians have already thrown in oblique references to violence, as if there is some threat of it. Before the recent march in Edinburgh one politician was dismissing the march, saying if it's not 1 million people (like in Catalonia recently) then it's a damp squib, oh and let's hope there isnt any ... you know ... (nudge nudge) trouble.

I'm not saying that violence would help the no vote. I'm saying fearmongering is a tactic of some on the no side, and fear of violence is something that has already been used.

[mistermack]

There is no angry violent aspect to the Scottish independence movement, it just doesn't exist. You will find the same level of and support for violence in Scottish independence movement as the anti EU movement in the Tory party.

Sorry Ron, but that is wishful crap.

The Scotland question is entering a completely new phase, unthinkable ten or twenty years ago.

I'm afraid that you prove nothing by pointing to history.
What's coming up is a complete unknown.

[John_fi_Skye]

If we listened a bit more to history, maybe it wouldn't have to keep repeating itself.

[ronmcd]

Am I not right in saying there was a wee bit of interest in the possibility of violent struggle for Scottish independence - maybe in the 50s? I think I remember hearing that the spooks in Whitehall were worried it could go like Ireland in 1917. But it didn't.

Yeah, they probably did worry about it. I would guess they were more worried when the oil was found. As we know Whitehall certainly deliberately lied about the knowledge of the extent of oil and how the income might be used, hence the McCrone report:

The McCrone report was a dossier written in 1974 by Professor Gavin McCrone, a leading government economist, for the Conservative UK government into the viability of an independent Scotland.

The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would have given an independent Scotland one of the strongest currencies in Europe and a large tax surplus. On this basis, it went on to say that officials advised government ministers on how to take "the wind out of the SNP sails". The incoming Labour administration classified the document as secret over fears it could give a further boost to the SNP's policy of Scottish independence.[1][2][3]

Thirty years later oil production had peaked and during the decade to 2012 declined by 6% per year, though due to increasing oil prices the annual tax revenue take remains considerable, coming in at around £35 billion in 2011-2012.[4] [5]

The dossier came to light in 2005 when the SNP obtained the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The full provisions of the Act came into force on 1 January 2005

But for the non Scots reading this I think it's worth remembering that contrary to some claims, there have ALWAYS been a minorty in Scotland who wanted independence, ever since the union was created I believe. It didn't suddenly appear in the last few years, and equally it didn't start with oil. It's simply that devolution and the disintegration of the Scottish Labour party have opened the way for the SNP to hold power in Scotland ... but not on a mandate for independence. Just on a mandate to ask the question.

So the idea that suddenly, now, in 2012, arguably after the oil boom years have passed, after the time was ripe for some angry violent ultra nationalist group to appear ... suddenly there will be trouble? I dont believe it, and I think when it is mentioned it is often deliberate shit-stirring.

[Audley Strange]

There is no angry violent aspect to the Scottish independence movement, it just doesn't exist. You will find the same level of and support for violence in Scottish independence movement as the anti EU movement in the Tory party.

Sorry Ron, but that is wishful crap.

The Scotland question is entering a completely new phase, unthinkable ten or twenty years ago.

I'm afraid that you prove nothing by pointing to history.
What's coming up is a complete unknown.

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... devolution

The people of Scotland first got the opportunity to vote in a referendum on proposals for devolution in 1979, and though a majority of those voting voted 'Yes', the referendum legislation also required 40% of the electorate to vote 'Yes' for the plans to be enacted. A second referendum opportunity in 1997, this time on a strong proposal, resulted in an overwhelming 'Yes' victory, leading to the Scotland Act 1998 being passed and the Scottish Parliament being established in 1999.

There is a lot of historical Yes' in there.