scottish independence ?

[scarletghoul]

Seems like a very real possibility for the next decade.. What are peoples opinions on it ? I particularly want to hear from scottish comrades about what they think and what the Scottish people think. Do most people want independence or not ?

Atm I think it would be pretty cool to see the UK dissolve into a few different states. Scotland (and Wales, not to mention NI) has a bigger prospect of socialism than England does, and I think the movements there could prosper if they werent attached to the English movement.

[Garret]

It's not whether it's cool or not, it's if the majority of these nations want that. The way I see it as an Englishmen is that their nations are not in danger and a bourgeois nation-state would come along with independence so it's worthless really.

Though I do think Northern Ireland would have no right to exist if the UK breaks up, but it should have to be like that, the less borders the better.

[Crimson Commissar]

Has potential, but it's very likely that if Scotland becomes independent it will just become another reactionary capitalist state like Ireland has.

[Zanthorus]

Countries which are tied together politically have closer internal political dynamics and hence a greater possibility for co-ordinated and centralised organisation and action. Splitting Britain up into England, Wales Scotland and Northern Island will be more likely to produce movements isolated within the geographical boundaries covered by their seperate political administrations. The most favourable situation from a proletarian internationalist standpoint would therefore be for Britain to remain a unified entity. I think the idea that seperate national movements would be more likely to produce socialism in certain countries than others is flawed, you seem to be thinking in terms of national islands of socialism rather than a co-ordinated international movement. Their existence as national parties was part of what tied the Second International parties to their 'own' bourgeoisie. Like the First and early Third Internationals we should be for the cultivation of international solidarity and action by the workers' movement. Of course, united action can occur whether or not national boundaries exist, but it would be easier for united action over a larger territorial area if Britain was Britain and not England, Scotland etc. For similar reasons, the dissolution of the European Union would be a set back for proletarian internationalism despite the fact that it currently exists as a union of capitalist states for the imposition of austerity measures against the working-class. In general, a more politically unified bourgeoisie is more conducive to the formation of a more politically unified working-class.

[Garret]

Has potential, but it's very likely that if Scotland becomes independent it will just become another reactionary capitalist state like Ireland has.
The left is significantly more influencial in Wales and Scotland in contrast to the Tory home counties.

[gorillafuck]

Zanthorus: Let's think that through practically. If it's in favor of internationalism to keep British hegemony over it's territories, then does that make one faction of the bourgeois, i.e. an independent Scottish bourgeois, more reactionary than the British bourgeois, since you say that British control is better for internationalism? And therefore siding with English bourgeois over Scottish bourgeois?

That doesn't seem like internationalism to me.

[Zanthorus]

Zanthorus: Let's think that through practically. If it's in favor of internationalism to keep British hegemony over it's territories, then does that make one faction of the bourgeois, i.e. an independent Scottish bourgeois, more reactionary than the British bourgeois, since you say that British control is better for internationalism?

I don't think this has anything to do with one faction of the bourgeoisie being more or less reactionary, either way what is in question is the organisation of the existing system of capitalist nation-states, it has to do with what conditions are more or less favourable for the formation of an organised proletarian movement covering a wider territorial area. I should probably make my position clear, I don't favour taking any side in this particular debate, but I do think that from an objective standpoint the dissolution of Britain into it's constituent states would hinder the development of centralised action. The point appears to be conceded by those arguing for independence, although they apparently see the existence of scattered national movements as a positive.


That doesn't seem like internationalism to me.

Internationalism is not just about the organisation of nation-states, it is about the organisation of the proletarian movement. Socialist or proletarian internationalists are for international organisation and action ala the First International, Marx's critique of the Lassalleans inadequate measures with regards to internationalism and Trotsky's critique of the Second International.

[ed miliband]

The left is significantly more influencial in Wales and Scotland in contrast to the Tory home counties.

"Tory home counties" = about 6 or 7 counties out of about 50 English counties.

And it depends what you mean by "the left" and "influential" at any rate; yeah, the Tories will never fare well in Scotland and Wales, the Communist Party might get 3% of the electorate to vote for them in some Welsh constiuencies, and Tommy Sheridan once had a pretty succesful thing going, but none of that means that an independent Scotland or Wales would be any closer to socialism than they are now.

[red cat]

Seems like a very real possibility for the next decade.. What are peoples opinions on it ? I particularly want to hear from scottish comrades about what they think and what the Scottish people think. Do most people want independence or not ?

Atm I think it would be pretty cool to see the UK dissolve into a few different states. Scotland (and Wales, not to mention NI) has a bigger prospect of socialism than England does, and I think the movements there could prosper if they werent attached to the English movement.

Nice to hear such a piece of good news.

Is there any militant communist group in Scotland ?

[Zanthorus]

I think we should be very clear here what it means that the 'left' is more popular in places like Scotland. What it means concretely is that Left-Labourite politics are more popular their than in England. As Communists though, we should recognise that our differences with Left-Labourism are not simply a matter of being more 'extreme', but of having qualitatively different positions with regards to democracy, internationalism, the political organisation and independence of the working-class and so on.

[blake 3:17]

As a socialist I support Scottish independence. Like Quebecois independence, it will only be a tinkering of the state, but a tinkering in the right direction and that could remove many barriers to other forms of social justice.

[Wanted Man]

How likely is it really at the moment? Wouldn't it first depend on the political situation after the elections in May? It seems very unlikely to me that a majority would support a referendum.

I don't really care about it either way. I would certainly call this a matter of self-determination. If Scotland becomes independent, they're not going to launch a military campaign to retake Berwick and they're not going to send all the Anglo-Scots to death camps (ZOMG REALLY???). Of all the world's nationalisms, the Scottish variety is more historical, economic, cultural, international-relations focused. Scots nationalism is not ethnic, racial or religious for the vast majority. There is nothing particularly reactionary about it.

The only thing that's too bad is that the "full independence" option at the moment does not include that Scotland will be a republic, rather than still having Mrs Windsor as head of state. It would certainly be a progressive move if the UK or any constituent of it were to take that route.


Countries which are tied together politically have closer internal political dynamics and hence a greater possibility for co-ordinated and centralised organisation and action. Splitting Britain up into England, Wales Scotland and Northern Island will be more likely to produce movements isolated within the geographical boundaries covered by their seperate political administrations. The most favourable situation from a proletarian internationalist standpoint would therefore be for Britain to remain a unified entity. I think the idea that seperate national movements would be more likely to produce socialism in certain countries than others is flawed, you seem to be thinking in terms of national islands of socialism rather than a co-ordinated international movement. Their existence as national parties was part of what tied the Second International parties to their 'own' bourgeoisie. Like the First and early Third Internationals we should be for the cultivation of international solidarity and action by the workers' movement. Of course, united action can occur whether or not national boundaries exist, but it would be easier for united action over a larger territorial area if Britain was Britain and not England, Scotland etc. For similar reasons, the dissolution of the European Union would be a set back for proletarian internationalism despite the fact that it currently exists as a union of capitalist states for the imposition of austerity measures against the working-class. In general, a more politically unified bourgeoisie is more conducive to the formation of a more politically unified working-class.

Any proof for any of this stuff?

It's also a false dichotomy to suggest that the only 2 possibilities are the conservation of the union or the building of "isolated nationalist socialist movements". That's just absurd. Also, can't help but laugh at the idea that the EU has anything to do with proletarian internationalism. This is a misconception that is almost exclusive to communists from the US and England who experience a lot of rabid anti-EU nationalism at home, and so they think they must be sympathetic to the EU.

[Rooster]

Scotland (and I'm not being nationalistic here) is an oppressed nation. Within the union, Scotland gives more than it takes out. Yet, within the centralised British system, Scotland gets ridiculed. The people here are reduced to stereotypes, life expectancy is lower, it's harder to get a job, our language is constantly being side lined.

As to whether Scottish people are more left leaning than English, well, I think overall that's true. Everyone I speak too (who votes) votes Socialist. The only reason people vote New Labour is largely for anti-English-hegemony. I don't think an independent Scotland would constitute a major change or obstacle to a revolution. Scotland already has it's own parliament (unlike England), so if people really felt like it would help then there would more left seats in it. The problem is that the memory of Thatcher still haunts the collective mind of the Scots, even if none of them were around during things like the poll-tax strike.

[Zanthorus]

Any proof for any of this stuff?

What sort of proof do you want for which parts? I don't think it's particularly hard to grasp that the continuation of Britain as a political entity forces greater co-operation between any movements within it.


It's also a false dichotomy to suggest that the only 2 possibilities are the conservation of the union or the building of "isolated nationalist socialist movements". That's just absurd.

I didn't suggest such a dichotomy. However, part of the argument for Scottish independence being put forward in this thread is that it would seperate the Scottish and English movements and supposedly allow Scotland to move towards socialism on its own.


Also, can't help but laugh at the idea that the EU has anything to do with proletarian internationalism. This is a misconception that is almost exclusive to communists from the US and England who experience a lot of rabid anti-EU nationalism at home, and so they think they must be sympathetic to the EU.

I'm not sympathetic to the EU, nor do I think it has anything to do with proletarian internationalism. What I said was that greater political co-operation by the bourgeoisie provides better conditions for affecting greater political co-operation between various working-class movements.

[Q]

I didn't suggest such a dichotomy. However, part of the argument for Scottish independence being put forward in this thread is that it would seperate the Scottish and English movements and supposedly allow Scotland to move towards socialism on its own.

I think it is worth asking if people here actually believed in such a way forward to socilism? I think it is a very obvious dead end, but I genuinely wonder.

[Rooster]

I think it is worth asking if people here actually believed in such a way forward to socilism? I think it is a very obvious dead end, but I genuinely wonder.

I don't think the majority of people in Scotland know what socialism is. I think it's more of a traditional/cultural aspect seen most in the areas that saw large scale industry. It's worth noting that the CP of Scotland and the Scottish Socialist Party all advocate independence. With Jimmy Reid, the trade union leader saying that if you want to vote socialist then vote for the national party.

[Kamil]

@Zanthorus: And I suppose it would have been in the best interest of internationalism for Vietnam to have remained under brutal french tryanny as well? Or or the Chinese to have gladly pandered to the japanese fascists? Going by your logic the entire anti-imperialist movement is a fetter against proletarian internationalism. Perhaps you can use some dazzling dialecitics to prove this. Scotland and Ulster are under the imperialist yoke of "great" britain and every people are born with the right to self-determination. The democracti revolution precedes the socialist one and Modern Celtic culture is deeply entrenched in the wokers movement, after independence both Ulster and Scotland have the potential to blossom with socialism. Remaining under alien tyranny could in no way be beneficial. I understand your point and reasoning, that should a revolution occur there COULD be a numerically larger amount of people participating and living under socialism, however, from the perspective of history, it is more likely that a liberated Scotland would be fertile ground for the revolution. The Scottish masses are already inclinced towards socialism, should they(us/we) be finally granted self-determination a very left-leaning Scotland would emerge.

[Tommy4ever]

OK as a Scot who lives in Scotland I feel I can give you my opinions on the situation.

First off I am passionately against independence. I just don't want to see Scotland collapse. Like it or loath it Scotland gets a really, really good deal out of the current situation. When basically get a large amount of money from the South and then complain about how they are oppressing us.

Scotland's economy and public sector would struggle to survive in the event of independence.

On to the realities of the situation. In truth Scotland is highly unlikely to become independent in the foreseeable future. People often make the mistake that people who vote SNP would vote for independence. This is simply not the case. Many either see the SNP as a good alternative to Labour (there is a widespread feeling that Labour has abandoned its core voters in Scotland) and that voting for the SNP gives Scotland a greater voice. Personally I disagree but this is what people believe.

The pro-independence part of the population, although very significant, is a definite minority.

As for Leftism, independence would certainly help Leftism here. Without the fear of the Tories those who cling to Labour to prevent the Tories from rising might be more willing to break free. Scotland is also much more Lefty than the rest of the country. Finally the inevitable increase in poverty would encourage radicalisation - but that's hardly a good price to pay.

All in all independence would be both unlikely and unwanted. It's really just the realm of the chest thumping nationalists and anti-English crowd.

[Kamil]

I'm not sympathetic to the EU, nor do I think it has anything to do with proletarian internationalism. What I said was that greater political co-operation by the bourgeoisie provides better conditions for affecting greater political co-operation between various working-class movements.[/QUOTE]


Entirely untrue and contrary to facts!! Political co-operation amongst the bourgeoisis creates a stronger enemy for the working class, they would be numerically greater and financially more powerfull. Divide and conquer, if they are divided they are weaker and easier to fight against. A united bourgeosis is threatening to the proliferation of the workers movement, the more organized they are the more able they are to maintain rule. Ruling caste teamwork makes them more efficiant which is the opposite of what we want. We need weak and divided ruling castes so that they can more easily be overthrown. If the ruling castes of Scotland and England are in league they can work together against us. The stronger the bourgeosis state apparatus is the more daunting the task. The stronger the bourgeosis state apparatus the more difficult it will be to overthrow. The Scottish situation is an example of Imperialism. Imperialism allows capitalism to propser. Should the capitalist government of britain be weaker the sooner it will collapse allowing socialism to take hold. The necesary line for the internation workers movement should be a pragmatic support of whatever the ruling caste does not want. The capitalists obviously wish to maintain the enslavement of Scotland, if its something they want and support it obviously runs counter to our goals. The working class in capitalist countries needs a weak and divided government in decay in order for us to thrive.

[scarletghoul]

It's not whether it's cool or not, it's if the majority of these nations want that.
Yes self-determination too of course. Not sure why I didnt mention that,, guess it goes without saying (cue Zanthorus anti right of self-determination rant)

Countries which are tied together politically have closer internal political dynamics and hence a greater possibility for co-ordinated and centralised organisation and action. Splitting Britain up into England, Wales Scotland and Northern Island will be more likely to produce movements isolated within the geographical boundaries covered by their seperate political administrations. The most favourable situation from a proletarian internationalist standpoint would therefore be for Britain to remain a unified entity. I think the idea that seperate national movements would be more likely to produce socialism in certain countries than others is flawed, you seem to be thinking in terms of national islands of socialism rather than a co-ordinated international movement.
You're wrong here; my outlook is the intercommunalist one, and I see it as a question of liberating territory rather than creating 'islands of socialism'. A territory would obviously be much easier to liberate if you don't have the British army and whatnot to deal with. Not to mention the English middle class. Liberated territory is always good, even if its just a little bit, and its perhaps the most important thing a movement can have, alongside mass support.


Their existence as national parties was part of what tied the Second International parties to their 'own' bourgeoisie. Like the First and early Third Internationals we should be for the cultivation of international solidarity and action by the workers' movement. Of course, united action can occur whether or not national boundaries exist, but it would be easier for united action over a larger territorial area if Britain was Britain and not England, Scotland etc. For similar reasons, the dissolution of the European Union would be a set back for proletarian internationalism despite the fact that it currently exists as a union of capitalist states for the imposition of austerity measures against the working-class. In general, a more politically unified bourgeoisie is more conducive to the formation of a more politically unified working-class.
What wuold have happened if Russia in 1917 was in a federation with Britain France etc? The revolution would have much less chance.

Or, to make it more relevant, look at Nepal. Its part of a wider south asian movement, but Maoists are close to securing state power there because its a separate state. If it had been part of India it would still be a guerilla zone probably. Likewise if, say, Chhattisgarh was a separate country it would be much easier for the maoists to consolidate power there.

This is approaching it purely from the strategic level, leaving aside all the questions of public opinion and rights and so on. I just think it would be easier to win if the units of bourgeois power (states) are cut into bitesize chunks.


I think we should be very clear here what it means that the 'left' is more popular in places like Scotland. What it means concretely is that Left-Labourite politics are more popular their than in England. As Communists though, we should recognise that our differences with Left-Labourism are not simply a matter of being more 'extreme', but of having qualitatively different positions with regards to democracy, internationalism, the political organisation and independence of the working-class and so on.I wouldnt just call it left-labourism, these places have a big history of revolutionary politics. NI being the most potent example, which I shouldnt need to explain. Wales seems to be biggest area of support for the CPB, and thats significant even if the party isnt that great, because supporting a party that calls itself 'communist' is a radical break in itself. There are places in scotland and wales that were nicknamed 'little moscow'.. there was red clydeside .. etc..


Nice to hear such a piece of good news.

Is there any militant communist group in Scotland ?
The SSP is very big. I dont know how militant they are, but they seem to be at least to the left of the CPB. Theres also an SWP front organisation called Solidarity who managed to get 2 seats in the scottish parliament (though theyve now lost them). Those 2 are the largest socialist organisations there. I too would be interested in hearing if anyone knows about some other communist parties in scotland


Scotland (and I'm not being nationalistic here) is an oppressed nation. Within the union, Scotland gives more than it takes out. Yet, within the centralised British system, Scotland gets ridiculed. The people here are reduced to stereotypes, life expectancy is lower, it's harder to get a job, our language is constantly being side lined.
Thanks for responding, this is interesting to read. Do most scottish people agree with that ? Its not a sentiment one hears a lot on the BBC (same is true of Wales, where welsh people are just used on tv for their funny voice.. my dads welsh and he is about as far as one can get from nationalist, and hes certainly not a socialist, but he says the welsh are an oppressed people too.. "not as oppressed as the irish, but still oppressed" lol).


As to whether Scottish people are more left leaning than English, well, I think overall that's true. Everyone I speak too (who votes) votes Socialist. The only reason people vote New Labour is largely for anti-English-hegemony. I don't think an independent Scotland would constitute a major change or obstacle to a revolution. Scotland already has it's own parliament (unlike England), so if people really felt like it would help then there would more left seats in it. The problem is that the memory of Thatcher still haunts the collective mind of the Scots, even if none of them were around during things like the poll-tax strike.Scotland still has far more elected communist officials than England, in proportion. I think that would increase if you became independent too, because people would have less reason to vote SNP

[TC]

Scottish independence makes no sense for a few reasons:

1. England subsidizes Scottland heavily, the relationship is one that is economically favorable to Scottland unlike the British (not English) colonizations of much of the world.

2. Scottish people overwhelmingly speak English so regardless of what England and Scottland officially call themselves, the two "nations" are much more like culturally distinct regions of a single nation.

3. Scotland and England have been Great Britain and later the United Kingdom for over 300 years, much longer than most countries have been unified. Scotland wasn't conquered by England, rather the Scottish monarchy came into possession of the English crown and the Scottish and English parliaments both enacted acts of union between the two states to combine the personal union into a full state union. The situation in no way resembled the relationship between Britain and Ireland.

4. Nations aren't eternal things - there hasn't always been a "Scotland" either it too was a political invention. Nationalism is always conceptually irrational but sometimes it can be a rhetorical device to allow for the emancipation of an ethno-linguistic minority from a socio-economic/military superior one - but this isn't a scenario we see in Scotland.

5. Scotland is disproportionately powerful in the United Kingdom: it can vote for domestic legislation governing England, but English MPs can't vote for domestic legislation governing Scotland. This combined with the flow of money from England to Scotland suggests that if you want to think of colonialisation, England is much more like a colony of Scotland than vice-versa. However I would still like Scotland to be part of the UK for political advantage to act as a counter-balance to rightwing voters in middle England. (my ideal political union for self interested reasons would be London+Oxford+Cambridge+Manchester+Birmingham+Scot land, with the rest of England and Wales and N. Ireland expelled from the UK :p (this is of course a joke)))

It would make more sense for say, Flanders and Wallonia to have separate states (splitting up Belgium) since they speak different languages and their union is less than 200 years old.

[TC]

Yes self-determination too of course. Not sure why I didnt mention that,, guess it goes without saying (cue Zanthorus anti right of self-determination rant)

I think its silly to think that Scottish people and English people are a separate people, when they share the same history, they are physically indistinguishable and speak the same language and therefore cannot be subject to effective racism based on ethno-linguistic charateristics.

You can't have "self determination" without defining who the "self" is and in the case of Scotland and England its totally arbitrary.


You're wrong here; my outlook is the intercommunalist one, and I see it as a question of liberating territory rather than creating 'islands of socialism'. A territory would obviously be much easier to liberate if you don't have the British army and whatnot to deal with. Even if Scotland were independent it would still be defended by the British army as a NATO nation on Britain's boarder. If there were ever a revolution in Scotland regardless of the political situation you can be sure that the UK (and NATO) would intervene instantly.



Not to mention the English middle class. You don't think they have a middle class in Scotland? :p.


Liberated territory is always good, even if its just a little bit, and its perhaps the most important thing a movement can have, alongside mass support.

But its not clear how it would be any more liberated than it is now. Aside from Scotland losing a ton of money, I don't see what would change, how the situation would improve.

It would have been easy to point to improvements made by kicking out England+Scotland from Ireland in say, 1900 or 1950, - or kicking the US-UK out of Iraq, but separating England and Scotland cannot benefit anyone except the British Conservative Party which would have a permanent majority in the remains of the UK, and fiscally conservative English people.



What wuold have happened if Russia in 1917 was in a federation with Britain France etc? The revolution would have much less chance. How do you figure?

A. Britain and France didn't need to be in a union with Russia, they invaded it during the revolution anyways.

B. France has lost tons of colonies to revolution: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Algeria right across the sea, etc.

C. Historically revolutions in tiny states have tended to go much much much worse than revolutions in large states. Russia and China had successful revolutions, and yet the attempts at revolution in the tiny states of Germany, in Barcelona, in Paris, have not gone so well.

D. It is very common for socialist states to formed around a multinational not national basis. The Soviet Union was and China is a collection of many nations, as was socialist Yugoslavia, socialist Czechslavocia,

[Kamil]

TC and Tommy4ever both make good points, but I guess its just the romantic in me that wants Scotland to be free.

[Rooster]

Thanks for responding, this is interesting to read. Do most scottish people agree with that ? Its not a sentiment one hears a lot on the BBC (same is true of Wales, where welsh people are just used on tv for their funny voice.. my dads welsh and he is about as far as one can get from nationalist, and hes certainly not a socialist, but he says the welsh are an oppressed people too.. "not as oppressed as the irish, but still oppressed" lol).

Well, our culture is being denied to a large extent. It's only recently that such actions have been taken to preserve such things as Gaelic. You can look up government statistics; more money goes out of Scotland than it does into Scotland (from taxes and other forms of profit generation). The balance of BBC funding is disproportionate. This is the same for all the countries in the Union to dffereing levels. It's something that most Scots recognise, but you have to understand also that Scotland is itself divided between East and West. So you get some people who moan about a Scot modifying their accent for an English audience and yet you get some who don't. Sorry for going on about the BBC but it's an area that I worked in and it's very noticeable that Scots are marginalised in that industry.[


Scotland still has far more elected communist officials than England, in proportion. I think that would increase if you became independent too, because people would have less reason to vote SNP

That may be, but I'm not sure how people will vote after independence. There isn't an obvious or large BNP style party here, the SDL is very small compared to the socialist youth. Historically, people on the Clyde and in the other large industry centres, have voted left and have taken significant trade union actions but that's long in the past (Battle of Glasgow 1919; often called a failed Bolshevik uprising by the media at the time) and I have no idea if it will still show up after an independent Scotland.

I've lived in areas of really dire poverty. Most people in those places are broken and basically brain damaged from booze. It's not that they don't (or didn't want to work), they've just been unable to get a job and stay of the dole long enough. It's still really tough to get a job in these places. I think the only people that benefit from the Union are the politicians in Westminster, where Labour can count on a majority in Scotland in national elections. Also possibly the large financial banking centres here. Maybe.

[Tommy4ever]

Can I ask exactly what Scottish people are referring to when they talk about ''our'' language?

It can't possibly be Gaelic. That is a toung spoken by 1.2% of the population (stats from UK census of 2001)? It can't possibly be that language which was only ever ,even at its height, spoken by part of the country. Gaelic as the language of Scotland is a myth.

[Crimson Commissar]

Can I ask exactly what Scottish people are referring to when they talk about ''our'' language?

It can't possibly be Gaelic. That is a toung spoken by 1.2% of the population (stats from UK census of 2001)? It can't possibly be that language which was only ever ,even at its height, spoken by part of the country. Gaelic as the language of Scotland is a myth.
The point is that Britain throughout it's history has been a primarily English state and has always served the interests of the English ruling class. Their policy has basically been to culturally assimilate all the people of Britain into one group. And, as you said yourself, it has worked as Scottish people today are pretty much identical to English people apart from a few very minor differences. I would hope that Scottish and Welsh culture would experience a revival if they became independent socialist states, or even if they remained part of a socialist Britain.

[Tommy4ever]

The point is that Britain throughout it's history has been a primarily English state and has always served the interests of the English ruling class. Their policy has basically been to culturally assimilate all the people of Britain into one group. And, as you said yourself, it has worked as Scottish people today are pretty much identical to English people apart from a few very minor differences. I would hope that Scottish and Welsh culture would experience a revival if they became independent socialist states, or even if they remained part of a socialist Britain.

The Scottish ruling classes have benefitted just as much (perhaps proportionally more) when compared to their English counterparts.

Today Edinburgh is the 2nd richest city per capita in Britain - behind only London. For a long time Glasgow was the 2nd city of the British Empire.

I'm tired of people making out that Scotland was some opressed colony of England. The fact is we have benefitted massively from Union and continue to do so.

In truth I don't know wht the English tollerate the Union. Afterall what do they get out of it? A prettier map? All they seem to get is laothing from the Scots and having their money syphoned off to fund us.

[TC]

In truth I don't know wht the English tollerate the Union. Afterall what do they get out of it? A prettier map? All they seem to get is laothing from the Scots and having their money syphoned off to fund us.

The real question on this logic is why Londeners tolerate the rest of Britain. Londonia Independence Now! I would quiet like Greater London to be a city state, though we would naturally have to keep the airports within our boarders.

[Wanted Man]

What sort of proof do you want for which parts? I don't think it's particularly hard to grasp that the continuation of Britain as a political entity forces greater co-operation between any movements within it.

I didn't suggest such a dichotomy. However, part of the argument for Scottish independence being put forward in this thread is that it would seperate the Scottish and English movements and supposedly allow Scotland to move towards socialism on its own.

Aren't these movements already fairly separated at the moment? Considering that in Scotland you have the SSP and Solidarity? And recently, apparently George Galloway announced his intention to return to Scotland and stand against these parties, causing all sorts of tensions. Apparently, there are a few differences in political culture, not only in that Scotland tends to lean further left, but also even within the far-left parties.

I'd say the left in England and Scotland worked better when RESPECT was basically an English initiative, trusting the Scottish socialists to run things north of the border. Of course, neither RESPECT nor the SSP ended too well, but that was for rather different reasons. In any case, with trust, cooperation and coordination, this seems to me far better than trying to pretend that we're all in the same "British" boat, even though a large part of the electorate may not feel that way at all.


I'm not sympathetic to the EU, nor do I think it has anything to do with proletarian internationalism. What I said was that greater political co-operation by the bourgeoisie provides better conditions for affecting greater political co-operation between various working-class movements.

And that is what I'd like to see proof for. Working-class movements that have a lot in common have always been able to find each other internationally, whether it was in the many different "internationals", the World Federation of Trade Unions, WFDY, etc. As long as they are made up of forces who practice internationalism, I'm sure it won't be the end of the world if the Scottish border becomes a border between two independent countries, instead of a border between two countries pretending to be a "united kingdom".

Conversely, the EU has existed for decades now, but how much has coordination of working-class movements improved? If it has done so significantly, is there any evidence of a causal link with the expansion of the EU? Again, I'd love to see it.


On to the realities of the situation. In truth Scotland is highly unlikely to become independent in the foreseeable future. People often make the mistake that people who vote SNP would vote for independence. This is simply not the case. Many either see the SNP as a good alternative to Labour (there is a widespread feeling that Labour has abandoned its core voters in Scotland) and that voting for the SNP gives Scotland a greater voice. Personally I disagree but this is what people believe.

The pro-independence part of the population, although very significant, is a definite minority.

I can understand that position. But what I think is ridiculous, even by bourgeois-democratic standards, is that a majority in Holyrood is still too chicken to allow a referendum. If the pro-independence part is a minority (which is certainly likely), why don't they put it to a popular vote and put the issue to sleep? I believe the SNP have said that the May election will be an opinion poll for independence itself. If they play such high stakes and lose, then we certainly won't be talking about it for another 10 years. But the other parties who confidently state that independence would be wrong, that nationalists are really a bunch of anti-English racists, etc., apparently don't have the bottle to let people decide for themselves.


First off I am passionately against independence. I just don't want to see Scotland collapse. Like it or loath it Scotland gets a really, really good deal out of the current situation. When basically get a large amount of money from the South and then complain about how they are oppressing us.

Scotland's economy and public sector would struggle to survive in the event of independence.

(...)

All in all independence would be both unlikely and unwanted. It's really just the realm of the chest thumping nationalists and anti-English crowd.

Both things sound like the bogeymen and fearmongering claims that appear in a lot of British media. The former may be true, but I don't know enough about Scotland to say that for sure. But I strongly doubt that the ruling class in Scotland would ever consider tolerating independence if it would lead to economic collapse and social upheaval.

As for the last part, again I don't live in Scotland, but I strongly doubt that as well. It's rather easy to be considered "anti-English". A while ago, there was a row about "Anyone But England" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/world-cup-2010/7840230/World-Cup-2010-HMV-withdraws-racist-anti-England-posters-from-Scottish-stores.html) posters for the 2010 World Cup, which were supposedly racist. Also, apparently Flower of Scotland (http://www.heraldscotland.com/flower-of-scotland-is-an-anti-english-rant-1.911529) is racist against the English as well. Yup, I'm sure we can all see the racism here... Next thing you know, those crazy nationalists will start rounding up the English and putting them in camps on the Shetland Islands!!111 Perish the thought.

Basically, all this is about is an advert making fun of a neighbouring nation and a beautiful song that deals with your country's history. If that's racist, then 90% of Dutch people are also racist against Belgians and Germans, because we rip on them just as much during the World Cup. It's just as racist as British songs about WWII ("Hitler has only got one ball" may be racist against Austrians!). Yet somehow, miraculously, we can still co-exist in the EU, Dutch border cities are always full of German tourists who want to watch the old city centre or smoke weed, and Germany is one of our top holiday destinations. I absolutely think that the whole "Anglophobic" thing, as if the English are an oppressed nation or something, is pure tabloid hysteria.

[Rooster]

The Scottish ruling classes have benefitted just as much (perhaps proportionally more) when compared to their English counterparts.

Exactly, the ruling classes.


Today Edinburgh is the 2nd richest city per capita in Britain - behind only London. For a long time Glasgow was the 2nd city of the British Empire.

Actually, it's the oil towns that benefit the most. Edinburgh is up there because of the finance sector.


I'm tired of people making out that Scotland was some opressed colony of England. The fact is we have benefitted massively from Union and continue to do so.

If that's the case, then why is Scotland often called the Sick Man of Europe? It may have benefited when teh act of union was passed 300 years ago, and during the Empire, but all I know is that the majority of people are living in poverty not because they're lazy or because there's a good benefits system, but because there's been a steady decline in work since the 70s when the labour power of much of the UK was broken up.[q


In truth I don't know wht the English tollerate the Union. Afterall what do they get out of it? A prettier map? All they seem to get is laothing from the Scots and having their money syphoned off to fund us.

The politicians tolerate it because of the amount of wealth flowing out of Scotland compared the what's going in. New Labour get a predicable voting block too. As for the English working class, they get very little out of it. They don't even get their own devolved parliament.

[Rooster]

Can I ask exactly what Scottish people are referring to when they talk about ''our'' language?

It can't possibly be Gaelic. That is a toung spoken by 1.2% of the population (stats from UK census of 2001)? It can't possibly be that language which was only ever ,even at its height, spoken by part of the country. Gaelic as the language of Scotland is a myth.

It's not a myth. A quick look at the spread of Gaelic place names across Scotland would show otherwise. At it' height, Scotland was a Celtic speaking country called Alba. Through the Norman conquests of England, many speakers of old English ended up in the central belt, giving us Lallans and the curious accents there in. If it wasn't for the act of Union, Scots man have been as different from English as Norwegian is from Danish.

[Tommy4ever]

I can understand that position. But what I think is ridiculous, even by bourgeois-democratic standards, is that a majority in Holyrood is still too chicken to allow a referendum. If the pro-independence part is a minority (which is certainly likely), why don't they put it to a popular vote and put the issue to sleep? I believe the SNP have said that the May election will be an opinion poll for independence itself. If they play such high stakes and lose, then we certainly won't be talking about it for another 10 years. But the other parties who confidently state that independence would be wrong, that nationalists are really a bunch of anti-English racists, etc., apparently don't have the bottle to let people decide for themselves.



Both things sound like the bogeymen and fearmongering claims that appear in a lot of British media. The former may be true, but I don't know enough about Scotland to say that for sure. But I strongly doubt that the ruling class in Scotland would ever consider tolerating independence if it would lead to economic collapse and social upheaval.

As for the last part, again I don't live in Scotland, but I strongly doubt that as well. It's rather easy to be considered "anti-English". A while ago, there was a row about "Anyone But England" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/world-cup-2010/7840230/World-Cup-2010-HMV-withdraws-racist-anti-England-posters-from-Scottish-stores.html) posters for the 2010 World Cup, which were supposedly racist. Also, apparently Flower of Scotland (http://www.heraldscotland.com/flower-of-scotland-is-an-anti-english-rant-1.911529) is racist against the English as well. Yup, I'm sure we can all see the racism here... Next thing you know, those crazy nationalists will start rounding up the English and putting them in camps on the Shetland Islands!!111 Perish the thought.

Basically, all this is about is about an advert making fun of a neighbouring nation and about a beautiful song that deals with your country's history. If that's racist, then 90% of Dutch people are also racist against Belgians and Germans, because we rip on them just as much during the World Cup. Yet somehow, miraculously, we can still co-exist in the EU, Dutch border cities are always full of German tourists who want to watch the old city centre or smoke weed, and Germany is one of our top holiday destinations. I absolutely think that the whole "Anglophobic" thing, as if the English are an oppressed nation or something, is pure tabloid hysteria.


The SNP don't campaign just on independence. They campaign largely as an alternative to Labour. They do not have a majority. They currently have a minority government and in fact have just one seat more than Labour.

The Scottish economy is in really poor shape, we are one of the poorest parts of the entire country and are heavily reliant upon the public sector (much like Northern England). Since we take considerably more than we recieve from the Union I think its pretty certain that a public sector reliant economy would suffer quite badly. That's not even taking into consideration any changes in the private sector. Most nationalists scream about the North Sea oil being our saviour, but even this is running out. The North Sea is expected to be no longer viable within a century and production has already peaked. So economic fears are very much justified.

As for Anti-English 'racism'. I wouldn't call it that. It is almost taken for granted that almost all Scots talk about the ''bloody English'', complain about them, support the other team in sporting competitions etc. For the most its seen as a friendly rivalry up here (although it annoys a lot of English people). However there are wide sections of the population who take it seriously and do hate the English, do feel the English exploit us and take our money (when if anything the reverse is true).

I think in all countries people like to 'josh' their neighbours and some people take it a bit far. This is true of Scotland. But since we are the smaller part of a Union with England it is also common for Scots to just blame all the woes of the world on those South of the border.

[IndependentCitizen]

What about us from Cornwall?

[Pavlov's House Party]

It's not a myth. A quick look at the spread of Gaelic place names across Scotland would show otherwise. At it' height, Scotland was a Celtic speaking country called Alba. Through the Norman conquests of England, many speakers of old English ended up in the central belt, giving us Lallans and the curious accents there in. If it wasn't for the act of Union, Scots man have been as different from English as Norwegian is from Danish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language


Consequently, Scots is often regarded as one of the ancient varieties of English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language), but with its own distinct dialects.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language#cite_note-English_Language_1992._p.894-1) Alternatively Scots is sometimes treated as a distinct Germanic language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_language), in the way Norwegian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language) is closely linked to, yet distinct from, Danish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_language).[/URL].. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbrian_%28Anglo-Saxon%29"]Northumbrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language#cite_note-English_Language_1992._p.894-1) Old English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English) had been established in southeastern Scotland as far as the River Forth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Forth) by the seventh century.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language#cite_note-16) It remained largely confined to this area until the thirteenth century, continuing in common use while Gaelic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Irish) was the language of the Scottish court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scottish_monarchs).

[Tommy4ever]

@ redrooster for his pecular logic of why the Scottish economy is so weak:

So let me get this straight ....

You think that the only reason that Scotland's economy is so abysmal is the English?

I don't understand you thinking here ....

Then why are areas of Northern England even poorer than Scotland? How can you blame the closure of declining industries on the English? Why do you insist on blaming the English for things? Why do you think we are anything but incredibly dependent on subsidies from South of the border? If you realise our economy is weak why would you want to cut off our only lifeline? Why do you insist on being so nationalistic about this?

WHY?????

[Wanted Man]

The politicians tolerate it because of the amount of wealth flowing out of Scotland compared the what's going in. New Labour get a predicable voting block too. As for the English working class, they get very little out of it. They don't even get their own devolved parliament.

Good post, especially this excellent example of how the current status ("unity") can actually divide the working-class: stating that there is a "Scottish Raj" in Britain who run everything, and how ridiculous it is that Scots MPs can influence decisions south of the border, but not the other way around. It's a great red herring because you can just blame one of the constituents of your "union". Just like how Flemish nationalists go on about lazy immigrants and Wallonians.

Anyway, if dear old England is really so hard-done by the West Lothian question, then I would consider that all the more reason to cut out the middleman and just have a fucking velvet divorce already. "It's not you, it's me." Again, I'm not a big fan of Scottish independence, but if both sides prefer it that way... At least some form of autonomy surely won't hurt anyone.

Lastly, someone earlier in the thread strangely chose to back Flemish nationalism, but not Scottish, for apparently purely ethno-nationalist reasons. I found that surprising, because Flemish nationalism is a purely reactionary form, full of fascistoid tendencies, initiated by the ruling-class to break away from "unprofitable" social elements and boot out all the immigrants, whereas Scottish nationalists want to be buddies with the rest of Europe and seem quite tolerant.

[Tifosi]

It's not a myth. A quick look at the spread of Gaelic place names across Scotland would show otherwise. At it' height, Scotland was a Celtic speaking country called Alba.

So what about Shetland, Orkney and Caithness? Gaelic was never the major spoking language this far north. Gaelic was only spoking in small pockets of the population. It's been historical more Norse up here, today English, second would most likely be Polish.

Yet the government waste money on putting Gaelic on all the road signs even though nobody can read them.


The Norse occupation of Caithness, which is generally proposed to be c. AD 800,[7] resulted in the introduction of the Norn language to Caithness, Orkney and Shetland. A dialect of the Norn language was spoken, although little is known about it. Some of this linguistic influence still exists in some parts of the county, however. A native of Wick, for example, will tend to say til instead of to. This is an example of the surviving modern use of an Old Norse word (til is Old Norse for to). The language lingered until the end of the 18th century in the islands, but died out earlier in Caithness, leaving only place names behind.[citation needed]

Wiki page (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caithness?wasRedirected=true)

[Rooster]

@ redrooster for his pecular logic of why the Scottish economy is so weak:

So let me get this straight ....

You think that the only reason that Scotland's economy is so abysmal is the English?

I don't understand you thinking here ....

Then why are areas of Northern England even poorer than Scotland? How can you blame the closure of declining industries on the English? Why do you insist on blaming the English for things? Why do you think we are anything but incredibly dependent on subsidies from South of the border? If you realise our economy is weak why would you want to cut off our only lifeline? Why do you insist on being so nationalistic about this?

WHY?????

The Scottish economy isn't weak. I didn't say it was. I'm saying that much of wealth generated by Scotland goes into Westminster, which in turn sends some of it back (but not all). It's the same with all other countries in the Union and it's only being used to prop up the bourgeois. I think the main reason why a lot of people have no work here in Scotland, northern England, Wales and Northern Ireland is because that much of the industry was broken up and sold off. All the mines, the factories, the ship yards, the car work factories. All that's left is a half empty oil field and the finance sector making any real profit. The only reason why we have any sort of defence against cuts and such is because we have a parliament, the English do not.

[Magdalen]

The Scottish national question is certainly a complex one - I've often heard it argued that unlike Ireland, Scotland was, and is, a 'junior partner' to British Imperialism, rather than an out-and-out oppressed nation, albeit a somewhat neglected one. This school of thought is not entirely without merit. Indeed, in his famous 1920 pamphlet The Irish tragedy: Scotland's disgrace, the great Scottish Socialist John MacLean (appointed by Lenin as Bolshevik Consul in Glasgow) noted that 'It seems the Scots are being used to crush the Irish.' Scottish soldiers have always been sent to die for British Imperialism in disproportionate numbers - it remains so to this very day: recent statistics have shown that the percentage of Scots in the British Army is significantly higher than in the United Kingdom as a whole. However, the same can be said for the Irish, or for the Indians, who died en masse upon the Western Front. In my opinion, the use of Scots as cannon fodder represents our oppression by British Imperialism rather than our partnership with it.

The history of conflict between Scotland and its more powerful Southern neighbour stretches far back into the annals of history, as anyone who has seen 'Braveheart' should be able to tell you. In the same pamphlet I quoted MacLean cites Wallace and Bruce as 'championing the cause of freedom' in the 13th and 14th centuries, against the same English yoke which was already so harshly oppressing the Irish people. I think the revival of interest in Wallace is positive, in spite of however much money Mel Gibson made out of it. The name of 'William Wallace' is now on the tongues of oppressed peoples across the world, often being mentioned by Palestinian youth upon meeting Scots. I also know of a Cuban who referred to Wallace as 'your Martí'. As Irish socialists honour Fiach MacHugh O'Byrne and Wolfe Tone, Scottish socialists should not feel afraid to pay respect to their own apostles in the struggle against English barbarism.

Ruaridh Erskine, a man often spoken highly of by John MacLean, once called for an 'uprising of the Scottish Gael' during a pro-Sínn Féin demonstration in London in the early 1920s. This may seem a curious remark, even in the context of the Gaelic revival which was taking place amidst the ousting of British Imperialism in Ireland. (As an aside, the remarks made by some users on this board insulting the Gaelic language are nonsense, swallow pro-Unionist myths, are ignorant of Scottish history, and are more than mildly offensive) However, John MacLean was a great believer in the history of communalism amongst the Scottish clans which had remained extant at least in part until the suppression of the 1745 rebellion. In another article of his, All Hail, the Scottish Workers' Republic!, MacLean used the slogan of 'backward to communism, and forward to communism!'. Even Lukacs has suggested the Scottish clan system as a possible vestige of 'primitive communism'. Erskine, originally a non-Socialist nationalist who began to move to the Left and associate with MacLean through their shared opposition to the First World War is certainly an interesting character, and it is a great shame that a decent biography of him has not yet been written.

More to come... forgive the slightly disarranged nature of things.

[Magdalen]

So what about Shetland, Orkney and Caithness? Gaelic was never the major spoking language this far north. Gaelic was only spoking in small pockets of the population. It's been historical more Norse up here, today English, second would most likely be Polish.

Yet the government waste money on putting Gaelic on all the road signs even though nobody can read them.



Wiki page (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caithness?wasRedirected=true)

This sounds suspiciously like the sort of rubbish spouted by the worst kind of right-wing Unionist against any attempt at the use of Irish in the Six Counties.

[Wanted Man]

The language thing is a bit of a red herring. Politicians who have never studied linguistics can endlessly split hairs about their own self-serving definitions of whether Scots is a "real language" or a "dialect", but what they call a "real language" is just the most dominant variety. In any case, that kind of debate is purely political and has no scientific basis.

Tifosi is right to say that other languages have been spoken in parts of Scotland, that people of other ethnicities have settled there, etc., but the linguistic element of Scots nationalism is very small, with only the intention to preserve Gaelic, while accepting that the English language will remain dominant; the ethnic part of Scots nationalism is almost completely non-existent, if there even is one. There has always been a lot of exchange, and 10% of Scots are actually of an English background. Wasn't one of the foremost Scottish nationalists in the past someone of English descent, who said that that was not the point at all?

[Rooster]

So what about Shetland, Orkney and Caithness? Gaelic was never the major spoking language this far north. Gaelic was only spoking in small pockets of the population. It's been historical more Norse up here, today English, second would most likely be Polish.

Yet the government waste money on putting Gaelic on all the road signs even though nobody can read them.



Wiki page (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caithness?wasRedirected=true)


The islands were the only parts of Scotland to be heavily populated by the Vikings. A distinct language grew up there called something like Hibero-Norse. Gaelic was spoken all the way across Scotland. Places where you think are Germanic are actually Gaelic words. People think Edinburgh is a Germanic name from the -burgh but it comes from the Gaelic Dùn Èideann. The few places that don't have Gaelic origins are the Pictish lands to the north east and the newer towns (like Moscow). It's not wasting money, I don't think. I think it's important to preserve things like language and I think it's wrong that it's so heavily over looked.

[scarletghoul]

I think its silly to think that Scottish people and English people are a separate people, when they share the same history, they are physically indistinguishable and speak the same language and therefore cannot be subject to effective racism based on ethno-linguistic charateristics.

You can't have "self determination" without defining who the "self" is and in the case of Scotland and England its totally arbitrary.there is some physical differences. They are more celtic whereas the english are more anglosaxon. Anyway thats really not the point. If you're saying they dont constitute a nation then, well, thats not the point either. I dont think nation states exist anymore anyway. At least, not as independent entities. And they can't exist... The world is made up of a collection of communities. And these communities should be able to determine their own destiny.


Even if Scotland were independent it would still be defended by the British army as a NATO nation on Britain's boarder. If there were ever a revolution in Scotland regardless of the political situation you can be sure that the UK (and NATO) would intervene instantly. Not quite the same is it. You say 'if there were a revolution'.. there is less chance of there even being a revolution as long as scotlands part of britain. the army is just one example, i was talking about the power of the british state in general, from repressive state apparatus to ideological state apparatus.


But its not clear how it would be any more liberated than it is now. Aside from Scotland losing a ton of money, I don't see what would change, how the situation would improve.

It would have been easy to point to improvements made by kicking out England+Scotland from Ireland in say, 1900 or 1950, - or kicking the US-UK out of Iraq, but separating England and Scotland cannot benefit anyone except the British Conservative Party which would have a permanent majority in the remains of the UK, and fiscally conservative English people.
Ah this is a misunderstanding. By liberated territory I meant socialist territory, formed by a post-independence revolution.


How do you figure?

A. Britain and France didn't need to be in a union with Russia, they invaded it during the revolution anyways.
Only after the Bolsheviks had been able to seize power. And their invasion forces were not as huge as the forces that would have been deployed if it was the same country..


B. France has lost tons of colonies to revolution: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Algeria right across the sea, etc.
they made it a lot harder though..


C. Historically revolutions in tiny states have tended to go much much much worse than revolutions in large states. Russia and China had successful revolutions, and yet the attempts at revolution in the tiny states of Germany, in Barcelona, in Paris, have not gone so well.
This is a weak argument based on the fact that russia and china are big countries. You could just as easily have said "Historically revolutions in large states have tended to go much much much worse than revolutions in tiny states. Cuba and Korea had successful revolutions, and yet the attempts at revolution in the large states of India, or the USA, have not gone so well."


D. It is very common for socialist states to formed around a multinational not national basis. The Soviet Union was and China is a collection of many nations, as was socialist Yugoslavia, socialist Czechslavocia,
These were because one dominant country had a revolution which spread to the others. if a breakup occured England would still be the dominant power of the British Isles, and a revolution there would probably spell revolution for the surrounding countries anyway. On the other hand if there was a revolutionary movement in Wales it would have more chance of succeeding if Wales was a separate country. In other words unity is much better for oppression than it is for spreading revolution. How many times have we seen revolutionary movements crushed in provinces or minority communities within a larger country

[gorillafuck]

I don't think this has anything to do with one faction of the bourgeoisie being more or less reactionary, either way what is in question is the organisation of the existing system of capitalist nation-states, it has to do with what conditions are more or less favourable for the formation of an organised proletarian movement covering a wider territorial area. I should probably make my position clear, I don't favour taking any side in this particular debate, but I do think that from an objective standpoint the dissolution of Britain into it's constituent states would hinder the development of centralised action. The point appears to be conceded by those arguing for independence, although they apparently see the existence of scattered national movements as a positive.
I understand what you mean, but you'll need to back up the allegation that a unified UK will lead to a more unified workers movement. I don't think that Puerto Rican unity with the U.S. has particularly aided the workers movement anywhere, and I don't see how Scottish unity with Britain aids the international workers movement.

My point is that the unity of the UK doesn't aid the international workers movement.


Internationalism is not just about the organisation of nation-states, it is about the organisation of the proletarian movement.
I know that.

[Tifosi]

This sounds suspiciously like the sort of rubbish spouted by the worst kind of right-wing Unionist against any attempt at the use of Irish in the Six Counties.

Ah yes, because what's going on in the Highlands (espically the east coast) with all the roads signs is totally simular to Unionist sectarianism in the Six Counties:rolleyes:

Gaelic is no better than dead here, there's no point to spending fuckloads of cash on small trivial things like roads signs. On the other hand, Irish Gaelic in the Six Countie's is spoking by more than a hand full of people to the best of my knowledge, unlike the east coast Highland's.


Gaelic was spoken all the way across Scotland.

Yes, but not in the numbers to justify the claim that "it was Scotlands lanaguage".


It's not wasting money, I don't think. I think it's important to preserve things like language and I think it's wrong that it's so heavily over looked.

Why? The reason that it's on it's last legs is because for one or another reason people don't feel that it is useful to know Gaelic.

[Rooster]

Ah yes, because what's going on in the Highlands (espically the east coast) with all the roads signs is totally simular to Unionist sectarianism in the Six Counties:rolleyes:

Gaelic is no better than dead here, there's no point to spending fuckloads of cash on small trivial things like roads signs. On the other hand, Irish Gaelic in the Six Countie's is spoking by more than a hand full of people to the best of my knowledge, unlike the east coast Highland's.

I think you're buying into the whole cultural homogenity of capitalism, to be honest. Everyone has to speak English, everyone has to adhere to the same societal norms.




Yes, but not in the numbers to justify the claim that "it was Scotlands lanaguage".

Why? The reason that it's on it's last legs is because for one or another reason people don't feel that it is useful to know Gaelic.

You have to ask yourself why this is. To claim that Gaelic wasn't the language of Scotland (where do you think the word Scot comes from?) is silly.

[Magdalen]

Ah yes, because what's going on in the Highlands (espically the east coast) with all the roads signs is totally simular to Unionist sectarianism in the Six Counties:rolleyes:

Gaelic is no better than dead here, there's no point to spending fuckloads of cash on small trivial things like roads signs. On the other hand, Irish Gaelic in the Six Countie's is spoking by more than a hand full of people to the best of my knowledge, unlike the east coast Highland's.



Yes, but not in the numbers to justify the claim that "it was Scotlands lanaguage".



Why? The reason that it's on it's last legs is because for one or another reason people don't feel that it is useful to know Gaelic.

Irish was practically a dead language in the 1890s, it took the perseverance of the Gaelic League, and of men like Pádraig Pearse to bring it back from the brink with the introduction of Irish-language schooling and a revival of the Gaelic literary tradition. Pearse, incidentally, went on to lead the Easter Rising!

Only a few weeks ago it was reported in the press that a school in Skye would be switching to the Gaelic medium, not because of any ideological pressure, but because the vast majority of its pupils were now native Gaelic speakers, a situation which had not existed in the past. To attempt to bury the Gaelic language is an attack on the Scottish nation, and a comfort to Anglo-American cultural Imperialism.

[Tifosi]

I think you're buying into the whole cultural homogenity of capitalism, to be honest. Everyone has to speak English, everyone has to adhere to the same societal norms.

I'm not saying that at all, I'm say Gaelic isn't a useful langauge in Caithness, Polish is more useful than Gaelic is. So really, why spend money on a trivial issue that will be nothing more than a pain in the arse to all but a hand full of people?

I'm not telling people not to learn Gaelic, if you feel like it, go for it! But when only 1.2% of the population speck Gaelic I see no point in alter things drastically, to make Scotland rustic or whatever.


You have to ask yourself why this is.

Because like other langauge through out the history of Scotland it's time has come and gone. The same fate will most likely befall for English.

I don't you think we should start teaching Pictish in schools (if we knew more about it)? I guess not. There there will be other before Pictish and so on and so forth.


To claim that Gaelic wasn't the language of Scotland (where do you think the word Scot comes from?) is silly.

Doesn't Scot come from the Latin word Scoti? Used to describe people that sailed from Ireland to raid coastly areas of Scotland before settling here.

[Rooster]

I'm not saying that at all, I'm say Gaelic isn't a useful langauge in Caithness, Polish is more useful than Gaelic is. So really, why spend money on a trivial issue that will be nothing more than a pain in the arse to all but a hand full of people?

I think all languages should be preserved. I don't think there's anything wrong or useless about spreading Gaelic. It's actually a very good language to learn if you want to learn about language it self. It's really interesting seeing the parallels between Gaelic and the Sanskrit language. anyway, my point is below:


Because like other langauge through out the history of Scotland it's time has come and gone. The same fate will most likely befall for English.

I don't you think we should start teaching Pictish in schools (if we knew more about it)? I guess not. There there will be other before Pictish and so on and so forth.

Gaelic more or less got more and more sidelined since the act of union, the highland clearances, the moving of the population towards the city (in short because of capitalism) , but it rapidly got more so when television came onto the scene and it's been that case ever since. It's a sign that there has been, and continues to be, a suppression of a Scottish national narrative, one outside of the English speaking world. Hardly anyone gets taught it in schools, you never see it on television except late at nights, you don't get it in print, very few newspapers publish in Gaelic, and you have to go back to the historical circumstances as to why it ended up like this.




Doesn't Scot come from the Latin word Scoti? Used to describe people that sailed from Ireland to raid coastly areas of Scotland before settling here.

A Gaelic tribe that came from Ireland, forming the kindgom of Dál Riata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata). Languages come and go, true, but why do they come and go?

[The Grey Blur]

ITT: the typical disturbing revleft chauvinism going on.

[Wanted Man]

People have been parroting the idea that "Scotland is being subsidised by England, and they should be grateful that England bothers with them". I couldn't be bothered to research this claim yesterday, but I found this today: http://newsnetscotland.com/economy/861-world-renowned-economist-says-scotland-subsidising-rest-of-uk

I also mentioned how unionist supporters throw out all kinds of scaremongering. Recent example of this by Labour: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/220688/Montenegro-fury-over-Gray-s-claims-of-ethnic-cleansing/

[Zanthorus]

@Wanted Man & Zeekloid: I'll concede the point with regards to the unity of the UK and the unity of the workers' movement.

[Tifosi]

Only a few weeks ago it was reported in the press that a school in Skye would be switching to the Gaelic medium, not because of any ideological pressure, but because the vast majority of its pupils were now native Gaelic speakers, a situation which had not existed in the past.

I remember this story, good for them, still, I'm sure that there are other schools across Scotland and the rest of the UK were English is the second language for most pupils. This (http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/english-is-second-language-for-10-000-pupils-in-scotland-1.853432) article from 2007 reports that 10,000 pupils in Scotland have English as a second language.

Still doesn't prove Gaelic was spoking all across Scotland in the numbers to claim that "it's Scotlands language", just the Gaelic was and still is widely spoking in the Hebrides, especially North Lewis.


To attempt to bury the Gaelic language is an attack on the Scottish nation, and a comfort to Anglo-American cultural Imperialism.

kk

[Magdalen]

Still doesn't prove Gaelic was spoking all across Scotland in the numbers to claim that "it's Scotlands language", just the Gaelic was and still is widely spoking in the Hebrides, especially North Lewis

As an interesting aside, there were Gaelic speakers living in places as far south as Coupar Angus (only about ten miles from Dundee) within living memory. The argument of Gaelic as being limited solely to the Western Isles doesn't hold much stock. I personally know several native Gaelic speakers of a young age from around the Aviemore/Kingussie area, which certainly isn't remote (being right on the main Perth-Inverness road and railway).

[Cencus]

My brother lives in Fort William, his girlfriend's son did not start learning English until primary 2. He's about 10 now and his English doesn't seem any worse than any other kid I've met at his age (not much of a comparison as I don't tend to talk to kids)

I remember a figure of 120,000 gaelic speakers bounded about at the time STV launched Speaking our Language back into the early/mid 90s.

[scourge007]

I'll open a bottle of wine when the whole UK is dismantled.

[LC89]

I don't have time to read through of all the reply. But I wonder if Scotland independent, they might get a embargo as America does/doing to Cuba.

[Demogorgon]

People have been parroting the idea that "Scotland is being subsidised by England, and they should be grateful that England bothers with them". I couldn't be bothered to research this claim yesterday, but I found this today: http://newsnetscotland.com/economy/861-world-renowned-economist-says-scotland-subsidising-rest-of-uk

I also mentioned how unionist supporters throw out all kinds of scaremongering. Recent example of this by Labour: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/220688/Montenegro-fury-over-Gray-s-claims-of-ethnic-cleansing/
Yeah, the issue is somewhat fraught. The claim that Scotland is subsidised comes from Scotland getting higher per capita spending in order to provide public services over a much more sparsely populated area (ie it costs more when you have to drive considerable distances to get to people), however Scotland also provides more in tax revenue than much of the UK so it is very possible that it is subsidising the rest of Britain.

There is also the issue that economic union probably hampers economic development in Scotland so any potential subsidy has to be balanced against that.

As for whether independence will happen. Well in May Labour will win because most people who voted for Lib Dem last time won't be doing that again for obvious reasons and Labour is the natural place for their votes to go and Labour are very staunchly Unionist.

More power will be devolved to Scotland in 2015 and there will likely be more devolution after that, but independence isn't immediate. I think it will come though, simply because political preferences in Scotland are very different to those of England. The latest opinion poll has the Conservatives at 9% in Scotland and the Lib Dems at 7% and those are the parties in the UK Government. With UK wide elections leading to results completely at odds with how Scotland votes, I don't think people will accept that forever.

So going out on a limb fifty years from now Scotland will probably be independent or at least have "devolution max".

[Tommy4ever]

My brother lives in Fort William, his girlfriend's son did not start learning English until primary 2. He's about 10 now and his English doesn't seem any worse than any other kid I've met at his age (not much of a comparison as I don't tend to talk to kids)

I remember a figure of 120,000 gaelic speakers bounded about at the time STV launched Speaking our Language back into the early/mid 90s.

According to the 2001 census there were (ten years ago) 58,000 Gaelic speakers whilst 92,000 people have 'some knowledge' by 'some ability' it is meant people can understand the language about as well as someone who studies French or German for the minimum time at school can understand French or German.

This is a tiny portion of the populace. All these anicdotes about how you know someone who speaks Gaelic are fine and all but I know people who speak Punjabi and Madarin, yet I do not to force the government to write Punjabi translations underneath every sign and claim that Punjabi is an inate part of Scotland's heritage (despite the fact that the number of Punjabi speakers compared to Gaelic speakers is not so different).

Considering that these stats are a decade old we can expect the Gaelic speaking population to be even smaller today. If we follow the trend decline then the number of speakers should be roughly 6 or 7 thousand lower today.

This is a language spoken by a tiny number of people. It is a language that has little to no connection with the vast majority of Scots. Why not just let it die?