What are the communist arguments for and against Scottish independence?

[Comrade Jacob]

I'm English but I live in Scotland considering it is still part of the same country (UK) and I will be eligible to vote in 2014 on the referendum. So what are the communist arguments for and against Scottish independence?
I am aware of there being more than one of this discussion, but it should be updated.

[RedCeltic]

The people of Scotland never had a say in the union of the kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England so the United Kingdom is based on decisions made by nobility, decisions mind you that were very unpopular with the people of Scotland. My family in Scotland tend to feel the United Kingdom fails to address issues and concerns of the Scottish people and therefore are all Scot Nationalists.

While I do believe that English and Scottish workings need to work together to combat capitalism as do all workers, I feel there is value in an independent Scotland that can move forward and in it's own direction unhindered by the monarchy-parliamentary system.

[Comrade Jacob]

The people of Scotland never had a say in the union of the kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England so the United Kingdom is based on decisions made by nobility, decisions mind you that were very unpopular with the people of Scotland. My family in Scotland tend to feel the United Kingdom fails to address issues and concerns of the Scottish people and therefore are all Scot Nationalists.

While I do believe that English and Scottish workings need to work together to combat capitalism as do all workers, I feel there is value in an independent Scotland that can move forward and in it's own direction unhindered by the monarchy-parliamentary system.

They will be keeping the monarchy.

[RedCeltic]

They will be keeping the monarchy.

I don't really see the point of that. I suppose you mean keeping it in the same way Canada does? I really don't see the point of keeping such a wasteful institution, nor do I see it as really being an independent Alba.

[Sam_b]

The Radical Independence (http://radicalindependence.org/) site may be of interest and use to you.

[Comrade Jacob]

I don't really see the point of that. I suppose you mean keeping it in the same way Canada does? I really don't see the point of keeping such a wasteful institution, nor do I see it as really being an independent Alba.

It seems like it.

[robbo203]

Independent or not, it is a matter of utter indifference. Anyone who imagines for one moment that the lives of workers in an independent Scotland are going to be significantly different from what they are now is living in a fools' paradise.


The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got (Communist Manifesto)


Nationalism , even the deluded and ridiculously romanticised nationalism of some on the left, desparately trying to square the circle, is just a link in the chain that keeps the working class firmly tied to capitalism. It is the illusion of a community of interests between workers and capitalists that can only perpetuate the system and detract form the class struggle

To hell with the nation state! To hell with all nation states!

[CommieMaybe]

I think that when we achieve Independence Scotland will have a Socialist (or at least slightly Left-Wing) government. Hardly anyone in Scotland actually votes for the Conservative Party so you can tell that Scotland is a Left minded country.

Independence will benefit our country greatly.
VOTE YES!!!

[bcbm]

national liberation is an impossible dream in a global capitalist society

[ckaihatsu]

Independent or not, it is a matter of utter indifference. Anyone who imagines for one moment that the lives of workers in an independent Scotland are going to be significantly different from what they are now is living in a fools' paradise.


The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got (Communist Manifesto)


Nationalism , even the deluded and ridiculously romanticised nationalism of some on the left, desparately trying to square the circle, is just a link in the chain that keeps the working class firmly tied to capitalism. It is the illusion of a community of interests between workers and capitalists that can only perpetuate the system and detract form the class struggle

To hell with the nation state! To hell with all nation states!





national liberation is an impossible dream in a global capitalist society


Noted, but wouldn't national liberation be more of an issue these days in a geopolitical world that's quickly turning into neocolonialism, as with Libya, Mali, and others -- ?

In other words, it seems that national liberation might be a valid *strategy* for a politics of proletarian independence -- and, at very least, a practical necessity, as we're seeing unfolding in Syria these days....

[human strike]

I seriously doubt there are any communist arguments for or against Scottish independence.

[Blake's Baby]

I seriously doubt there are any communist arguments for or against Scottish independence.

Well, exactly, the communist argument is that there is no solution to the problems of the working class inside capitalism. So it's pretty irrelevant.

The practical unity of the working class in Scotland and the rest of the UK, and Europe, and the world, that is absolutley necessary, may be a little more difficult if Scotland leaves the UK, but it might not.


I don't really see the point of that. I suppose you mean keeping it in the same way Canada does? I really don't see the point of keeping such a wasteful institution, nor do I see it as really being an independent Alba.

As the Royal Family is descended from the House of Hannover, which derives its claim to the throne of Great Britain from the House of Stuart, you'd best be bloody sure that they're keeping the monarchy. It is after all the Scottish Royal House.

Salmond has also said that Scotland would keep the pound and stay in NATO.


The people of Scotland never had a say in the union of the kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England so the United Kingdom is based on decisions made by nobility, decisions mind you that were very unpopular with the people of Scotland. My family in Scotland tend to feel the United Kingdom fails to address issues and concerns of the Scottish people and therefore are all Scot Nationalists...

It's funny, the last I heard, 31% of people in Scotland wanted to leave the Union. On the other hand, 41% of people in England wanted Scotland to leave the Union. Of course, the 'people of England' (not to mention the 'people of Wales') were not consulted either.

But then again, the 'people of Shetland' weren't consulted when they were absorbed into the Kingdom of Scotland. The majority of people in Shetland oppose leaving the Union. Will you allow them to stay in/seceed from Scotland? Where does it stop?

[ckaihatsu]

The Case for Supporting National Liberation

http://www.revleft.com/vb/case-supporting-national-t180190/index.html





Trotsky lays out how the question of independence in Ireland, after the 1916 Easter Uprising, is indistinguishable from the question of working class power. Due to the peasantry's interest in obtaining land, the indifference from English workers towards the ongoing massacre and oppression in Ireland, and the Irish bourgeoisie's alliance with Imperialism, the Irish working class (especially in Ulster) were and are the only ones who really pushed for independence, which could only lead to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat if it's completely pushed through. In any case, here we go:

http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1916/07/dublin.htm


Also:


U.S. hands off Mali, U.S. out of Africa!

http://www.revleft.com/vb/u-s-hands-t177511/index.html?t=177511

[Yuppie Grinder]

national liberation is an impossible dream in a global capitalist society

Seriously. It's 2013, people.

[Evo2]

It simply fosters a false consciousness of "nation" which is a distraction from a persons class.


Class maters, nationality doesn't

[vijaya]

I and all the inhabitants of Cumbria never had a say in our region's 'union' with England, so by that logic I should be campaigning for Cumbrian Independence. And even though I do believe in Cumbrian independence for anarchistic, as well as historic reasons, I don't think that is Scotland's greatest reason for independence.

'Celtic' (a vague term) culture is constantly suppressed by the more dominant 'Anglo-Saxon' (equally vague) cultural ideology, and this, to the psyche of Scottish people; I think gives a unified front against the constant deprivation caused by the English Establishment.

Even though I'm 'English' I oppose the English State in it's current form, and think that regional identities need to express their self-determination through a socialist worker's cultural ideology (as well as political-economic structure, of course), and Scotland is at the beginning of achieving this. And while I know all of this sounds like 'Celtic' rhetoric that espouses nationalism and cultural interests over worker's interests, I disagree. It is a reality for me and my peers.

Scotland needs independence, for cultural self-determination, for smaller political units, to encourage People's movements, to make a statements against economic and cultural-political elites that dominate regions which have long deserved autonomy and emancipation, and for a whole array of reasons.

An independent Scotland challenges the English hegemony of Great Britain, just as Irish independence challenged the English hegemony of the British Isles as a whole. Soon Welsh independence will break English dominance of Southern Britain, and regional identities will dismember this elitist 'English', monarchical, aristocratic financial autocracy and Britain will be unified under socialist confederacy, but over decades of questioned English homogeneity; will be regionally diverse and confident.

[Red_Banner]

The sooner the vestiges of the British Empire are done away with, the better!


Independence for Scotland!

[Entfremdung]

My personal 'argument' against is that I dread the perpetual Tory (or possible Tory-UKIP coalition) government we'll be left with in England :unsure:

But really it is for the people of Scotland to decide their future.

[Blake's Baby]

The sooner the vestiges of the British Empire are done away with, the better!


Independence for Scotland!

Why not independence for England?




My personal 'argument' against is that I dread the perpetual Tory (or possible Tory-UKIP coalition) government we'll be left with in England :unsure:

...

How would that even hppen? If Scotland is an independent country, it will need a 'left wing' and a 'right wing', just like everywhere else. The SNP can be the right wing; Labour can be the 'left wing'. Perpetual tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee there.

England too would need to alternate right- and left-wing teams. The Tories woul still alternate with Labour, because more people in England would vote Labour. After the first five years of 300 Conservative and 50 Labour MPs, things would adjust.

[Entfremdung]

Why not independence for England?
Because that would be bourgeois nationalism / fascism. Duh.


England too would need to alternate right- and left-wing teams. The Tories would still alternate with Labour, because more people in England would vote Labour. After the first five years of 300 Conservative and 50 Labour MPs, things would adjust.
Is this some eternal law I'm unaware of?

[Blake's Baby]

Because that would be bourgeois nationalism / fascism. Duh...

I'm utterly unable to tell whether you're being serious or not, or what you're not being serious about.

How is Scottish independence a good thing, but English independence would be a bad thing? If England is oppressing Scotland, then England leaving the Union can only be a good thing, can't it?


...
Is this some eternal law I'm unaware of?

I guess so.

I can't think of any capitalist metropolitan country that has one party that governs and another that's a perpetual opposition. The Social-Democrats in Sweden, maybe, but it's hardly one of the main capitalist countries. Everywhere else, Tweedle-Dum rules for maybe 10-15 years tops and then Tweedle-Dee takes over for a bit. I think that is what would happen in England too.

[Red_Banner]

Why not independence for England?





How would that even hppen? If Scotland is an independent country, it will need a 'left wing' and a 'right wing', just like everywhere else. The SNP can be the right wing; Labour can be the 'left wing'. Perpetual tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee there.

England too would need to alternate right- and left-wing teams. The Tories woul still alternate with Labour, because more people in England would vote Labour. After the first five years of 300 Conservative and 50 Labour MPs, things would adjust.

Quit being an idiot.

How do you take what I said as an argument against English independence?

[Blake's Baby]

Quit being an idiot...

Charmed, I'm sure. Do you say that to all the proles? Must win you a lot of friends and influence there.


...How do you take what I said as an argument against English independence?

How do you take what I said as being a demonstration that I think you were arguing against English independence?

What I'm getting at is, if you support Scottish independence, do you also support English independence? It was phrased as a question.

So, would you support English independence from the Union? 41% of people in England want Scotland to leave (more than the percentage of Scots who want to leave, and vastly more in numbers terms) and I'm sure that a sizeable minority of English want to be completely shot of Wales, NI and Scotland too. Do you support that?

[Conscript]

national liberation is an impossible dream in a global capitalist society

On the contrary, that just ties it to the socialist revolution much in the same manner the liberation of the nations of the tsarist empire and the completion of the bourgeois revolution had to be tied to the socialist revolution because it just couldn't stop there.

Much like the national bourgeoisie was too weak to develop capitalism and liberal reforms in tsarist russia, it is too weak to challenge the imperialistic international capital, and will instead collaborate. The working class is the one that loses and suffers the bulk of national oppression. Since any revolution is initially national, the question of national oppression and rule of foreign capital will simply have to addressed, and the solution is to tie it to the socialist revolution, which is easy because the working class abolishes both of those problems just by seizing power. So like it or not you will either by dealing with such national questions or indirectly addressing them simply by being a revolutionary and a national.

If you couldn't achieve national liberation because of global capitalism, that doesn't mean you stop liberating nations. Wrong way genius.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

On the contrary, that just ties it to the socialist revolution much in the same manner the liberation of the nations of the tsarist empire and the completion of the bourgeois revolution had to be tied to the socialist revolution because it just couldn't stop there.

There is no socialist revolution, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? There is no greater likelihood of socialism, or communism, being achieved by an independent Scotland.


Much like the national bourgeoisie was too weak to develop capitalism and liberal reforms in tsarist russia, it is too weak to challenge the imperialistic international capital, and will instead collaborate.

Why would the national bourgeoisie want to challenge international capital? 'International capital' (pretty shady sounding phraseology there!) is a composite of its constituent national capital units. The interests of the national bourgeoisie and 'international capital' are aligned - those of capital. They are directly, and uniquivocally, opposed to the interests of the workers, of each and all countries.


The working class is the one that loses and suffers the bulk of national oppression. Since any revolution is initially national, the question of national oppression and rule of foreign capital will simply have to addressed, and the solution is to tie it to the socialist revolution, which is easy because the working class abolishes both of those problems just by seizing power. So like it or not you will either by dealing with such national questions or indirectly addressing them simply by being a revolutionary and a national.

This is bullshit. Only someone who has no creative understanding of the potential applications of socialism could refuse to entertain the idea that a political revolution can be a regional event, or even further. If the Arab Spring could sweep across an entire region quicker than you can say 'reactionary', then you can sure as hell bet that a genuinely popular, socialist revolution could do the same. We need to really quite regurgitating this cold war era, Socialism In One Country crap. It's outdated and irrelevant - capitalism is global, so too will socialism be, from day one. None of this 'building up socialism in one country' first bullshit.


If you couldn't achieve national liberation because of global capitalism, that doesn't mean you stop liberating nations. Wrong way genius.

Liberating nations has nothing to do with national liberation. One is the freedom of the workers from the yoke of the existence of the nation-state, the other is the entaglement of the national bourgeoisie with nationalist ideology. National liberation has historically served - and will continue to serve - to strengthen the nation-state and take us a step away from the destruction of countries/nation-states.

[Brotto Rühle]

Scottish independence is irrelevant, and serves only bourgeois nationalism.

[Conscript]

There is no socialist revolution, so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? There is no greater likelihood of socialism, or communism, being achieved by an independent Scotland.



Why would the national bourgeoisie want to challenge international capital? 'International capital' (pretty shady sounding phraseology there!) is a composite of its constituent national capital units. The interests of the national bourgeoisie and 'international capital' are aligned - those of capital. They are directly, and uniquivocally, opposed to the interests of the workers, of each and all countries.



This is bullshit. Only someone who has no creative understanding of the potential applications of socialism could refuse to entertain the idea that a political revolution can be a regional event, or even further. If the Arab Spring could sweep across an entire region quicker than you can say 'reactionary', then you can sure as hell bet that a genuinely popular, socialist revolution could do the same. We need to really quite regurgitating this cold war era, Socialism In One Country crap. It's outdated and irrelevant - capitalism is global, so too will socialism be, from day one. None of this 'building up socialism in one country' first bullshit.



Liberating nations has nothing to do with national liberation. One is the freedom of the workers from the yoke of the existence of the nation-state, the other is the entaglement of the national bourgeoisie with nationalist ideology. National liberation has historically served - and will continue to serve - to strengthen the nation-state and take us a step away from the destruction of countries/nation-states.

At first glance maybe not, but a first glance on tsarist russia would have us be mensheviks. The point is some traditionally considered bourgeois ideas by fortune of capitalism evolving become questions solved by the working class and tied to the socialist revolution.

In that case something like independent scotland becomes evidence of class consciousness and a socialist gain, much like the modernization of russia and dissolution of the reactionary empire was. Times change.

As for why the national bourgeoisie would challenge international question, I can't help but think what a fucking dumb question this is. Even if the national bourgeoisie was a bunch of free marketeers they would still oppose being left to the mercy of the market while all the world's big capital had the complete support & intervention of their nation-state.


Asking me that is like asking me why the bourgeoisie would want to become imperialist. Do you think the ruling class of a nation wants to be the lesser in the big picture? And no, their interests don't align. This is the era of imperialism not the era of the anational hippie global bourgeoisie.

This has nothing to do with sioc, all revolutions have a prominent national character, because nations are the units which as an aggregate constitute the world. This just means the socialists of one nation will have to analyze and address national conditions and questions and how they relate to the international socialist revolution. In the best case scenario, these become sparks for international revolution, like russia.

Also I'm not sure how you can cite 'arab' spring as evidence of how much nations have become irrelevant. How much oppression and capitalist crises are concentrated on arabs and in the middle east in general is clearly evidence of the contrary.

National liberation doesn't signal entanglement with the national bourgeoisie, neither does the completion of the bourgeois revolution. Unless you're a mensheviks that is. It can either be entirely bourgeois and reactionary, and lead to nothing of use for the socialist.

Or it can instead be part of the working class' ascension to power and constituting the nation, and as such it simply has to deal with national conditions and issues, just like russia.

You might not recognize the difference but thank fucking god the reactionaries do. If I can't convince you they will as they applaud the independence of one nation while attacking another for its communist influence.

[Celtic_0ne]

Before international unification there must be division especially for oppressed nations and cultures

[Entfremdung]

I'm utterly unable to tell whether you're being serious or not, or what you're not being serious about.

Don't worry about it. I basically agree with you. Except I think you perhaps underestimate just how Tory the majority of England is. I would hope that as an increasingly squeezed English working class we might start to fight back a bit more. I just fear that, without Scotland, British institutions would carry on functioning as normal but with even less opposition.

[Blake's Baby]

Don't worry about it. I basically agree with you. Except I think you perhaps underestimate just how Tory the majority of England is. I would hope that as an increasingly squeezed English working class we might start to fight back a bit more. I just fear that, without Scotland, British institutions would carry on functioning as normal but with even less opposition.

Underestimate how Tory England is? I doubt it, I live there.

I think you don't understand why England is Tory. While Scotland and Wales are 'Labour', England can afford to vote Tory. But nowhere can afford to have the same party in office for 30 years. If Scotland Wales leave the Union, and there is an English parliament, it too will develop a right and a left. That's what parliaments are for.

Why do you think Labour are an 'opposition'? What were they opposing in the period 1997-2010?

In short, I think that if the Union dissolved, in all the constituent countries (with the possible exeption on Northern Ireland) would very rapidly develop a right and left wing.

[Entfremdung]

Why do you think Labour are an 'opposition'? What were they opposing in the period 1997-2010?

I don't. Then or now.

[Blake's Baby]

So what's the problem?

[Entfremdung]

I was wondering that. I thought I had qualified my initial statement enough for it to be obvious that I wasn't seriously making a case for Unionism based on English self-interest or support for the Labour Party.

[Tjis]

Scottish independence is a bad idea. An independent Scotland would divide the working class in Great Britain, without harming capital in any way.
The bourgeoisie knows no borders. Money is just as easily invested in England as it is in Scotland. The EU ensures that labor, capital and commodities can move freely. An independent Scotland would not change this. All that would change is what laws apply.

I very much doubt that an independent Scotland would mean better labor laws though. Nobody is forced to invest their money in Scotland. If the reproduction of labor-power becomes significantly more expensive in Scotland than it is in England, capitalists will simply stop investing in Scotland. So what I'd expect to happen rather is a race to the bottom, with England and Scotland competing for lower wages, cheaper workplace requirements, harsher anti-union legislation, as both countries try to attract investors.

Scottish independence is really only a good thing if you consider cultural/national identity to be more important than the conditions of the working class.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Every single left-wing supporter of Scottish Independence is a pseudo-Nationalist. Most don't even realise it.

Some of the language in this thread suggests even posters here have succumbed to Ethno-Nationalist thought.

[ckaihatsu]

Every single left-wing supporter of Scottish Independence is a pseudo-Nationalist. Most don't even realise it.

Some of the language in this thread suggests even posters here have succumbed to Ethno-Nationalist thought.


This issue, like NAFTA or the Euro currency, is "messy" for us on the revolutionary left because we'd rather not have to comment *at all* on matters like these that are *internal* to the bourgeoisie.

It's difficult *not* to look like an 'ethno-nationalist' when that's how the debate is being framed to begin with, and with a constrained political latitude.

But, for us, it may be better to look at these events as opportunities for our *class-based* politics to arise whenever the bourgeoisie's own camp is somewhat 'destabilized' over how to slice national boundaries, etc.

See:


The Euro - exit stage Left?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/euro-exit-stage-t184580/index.html

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

This issue, like NAFTA or the Euro currency, is "messy" for us on the revolutionary left because we'd rather not have to comment *at all* on matters like these that are *internal* to the bourgeoisie.

It's difficult *not* to look like an 'ethno-nationalist' when that's how the debate is being framed to begin with, and with a constrained political latitude.

But, for us, it may be better to look at these events as opportunities for our *class-based* politics to arise whenever the bourgeoisie's own camp is somewhat 'destabilized' over how to slice national boundaries, etc.

It's easy to sugar-coat support of (insert-first-world-national-liberation-movement-here) as some kind of tactical move, but in reality there is an ethno-nationalist element to your support of it, whether you realise it or not.

It's obvious, reading the posts of several posters in this very thread, that this is the case for them.

[Sam_b]

but in reality there is an ethno-nationalist element to your support of it, whether you realise it or not.

The guy in UKIP is talking about nationalism. How cute!

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

The guy in UKIP is talking about nationalism. How cute!

Irrelevant ad hominem.

You have no rebuttal to my point, because you know I'm right.

[Blake's Baby]

Irrelevant ad hominem...

Really, not. Your political stance on the issue of the UK's relationship with Europe is obviously going to be related to the issue of Scotland's relationship with the UK. It's the exact opposite of an irrelevant and ad hominem attack.


...You have no rebuttal to my point, because you know I'm right.

Indeed you are. But your defence should have been 'but you 'leftists' claim to be above such things, whereas I'm quite comfortable being a nationalist, thank you'.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Really, not. Your political stance on the issue of the UK's relationship with Europe is obviously going to be related to the issue of Scotland's relationship with the UK. It's the exact opposite of an irrelevant and ad hominem attack.


Do you not know the meaning of the term ad hominem?

I am well aware that the point I made, if I truly believed it (which I don't), makes me a hypocrite, but I am saying it for argument's sake, using Leftist logic.

[Blake's Baby]

Do you not know the meaning of the term ad hominem?
...

Yes, do you?

Feel free to explain why your stated support of UKIP should not be considered as significant, when discussing your attitude to the break-up of the UK.



...I am well aware that the point I made, if I truly believed it (which I don't), makes me a hypocrite, but I am saying it for argument's sake, using Leftist logic.

I don't know what 'leftist logic' is, nor what you think it is, so feel free to explain that, too.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Yes, do you?

Feel free to explain why your stated support of UKIP should not be considered as significant, when discussing your attitude to the break-up of the UK.

Because we are not discussing my attitude. I am discussing your attitude. My attitude is not up for discussion as it has nothing to do with the points I am making.

[Blake's Baby]

Hard luck. We think it's relevant.

So, please, explain what the relationship is between your supposed support for UKIP and your take on Scottish independence.

[The Feral Underclass]

I know this is off-topic, but I just wanted to point out to any one who isn't already convinced at how ridiculous UKIP are: They recently started posting a leaflet through people's letter boxes stating boldly that if the UK opened it's borders to Bulgarian and Romanian workers, which is planned to happen in January 2014, we would see 29 million Bulgarian and Romanian migrants flooding into Britain...The problem being, of course, that the combined population of Romania and Bulgaria is only 27 million.

[Tim Cornelis]

I know this is off-topic, but I just wanted to point out to any one who isn't already convinced at how ridiculous UKIP are: They recently started posting a leaflet through people's letter boxes stating boldly that if the UK opened it's borders to Bulgarian and Romanian workers, which is planned to happen in January 2014, we would see 29 million Bulgarian and Romanian migrants flooding into Britain...The problem being, of course, that the combined population of Romania and Bulgaria is only 27 million.

It think the argument is that 29 million people could, in the sense they have the potential to, migrate to the UK. The combined population is 29 million according to two sources (UK newspapers). I don't think they're claiming 29 million will migrate to the UK. Also, its* borders.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'll try to make it quite simple. The politics of independence definitely does one thing: draw the working class out of our own terrain, one of class struggle, and necessarily within the framework of nationalist infused class collaboration, which can only be interpreted as a step back for the class (and we surely don't need more steps back since the situation is, well, as it is today).


An independent Scotland would divide the working class in Great Britain, without harming capital in any way.

Apart from what I said, I think this is the only other relevant problem here.

[The Feral Underclass]

It think the argument is that 29 million people could, in the sense they have the potential to, migrate to the UK. The combined population is 29 million according to two sources (UK newspapers). I don't think they're claiming 29 million will migrate to the UK. Also, its* borders.

I took my statistics from Wikipedia.

Here is the leaflet.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ukip-bulgaria-romania-leaflet.jpg

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Hard luck. We think it's relevant.

So, please, explain what the relationship is between your supposed support for UKIP and your take on Scottish independence.

There is no relationship.

I have already explained the relationship between your take on (and the inherent link between) Scottish Independence and Nationalism.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

It think the argument is that 29 million people could, in the sense they have the potential to, migrate to the UK.

This. I don't see why so many people fail to grasp this very basic logic.

[Comrade Jacob]

This. I don't see why so many people fail to grasp this very basic logic.

A purposely shit choice of words.

[The Feral Underclass]

This. I don't see why so many people fail to grasp this very basic logic.

So the argument of the UKIP is that the EU have given permission for the entire populations of Romania and Bulgaria to come to the UK?

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

So the argument of the UKIP is that the EU have given permission for the entire populations of Romania and Bulgaria to come to the UK?

There's nothing factually incorrect about their claim.

It's not their "argument", it's just highlighting a prime example how much of an absolute farce the EU is

[The Feral Underclass]

There's nothing factually incorrect about their claim.

Well yes there is. There aren't 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians in the world.


It's not their "argument", it's just highlighting a prime example how much of an absolute farce the EU is

But it's an imaginary example. It is a farce that UKIP have created. The actual situation which UKIP are alluding to does not exist. It is a classic example of strawman argument.

You've taken this so called fact and constructed a fantastical situation that is completely untrue and then attributed that absurdness to the EU in order to make a contrived point about the EU immigration policy. If the EU is a farce, it is not because of this hypothetical construct.

Even if we are to critique the premise of your argument on its own terms, what you are saying is that immigration from these countries is okay, providing it's not 29 million people.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Well yes there is. There aren't 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians in the world.

I'm no expert on demographics but I imagine if you include Romanians/Bulgarians already living in other EU countries, the total exceeds 29 million.


But it's an imaginary example. It is a farce that UKIP have created. The actual situation which UKIP are alluding to does not exist. It is a classic example of strawman argument.

See above. Even if their figures aren't accurate, the exact same point applies to 27 million.


You've taken this so called fact and constructed a fantastical situation that is completely untrue and then attributed that absurdness to the EU in order to make a contrived point about the EU immigration policy. If the EU is a face, it is not because of this hypothetical construct.

If you doubt the 29 million figure, apply the exact same situation to 27 million.


Even if we are to critique the premise of your argument on its own terms, what you are saying is that immigration from these countries is okay, providing it's not 29 million people.

Strawman. They aren't saying or implying that whatsoever in any way, shape or form. They are just using the figures as an example to highlight how ridiculous remaining in the EU is.

[LeftwingerIndia]

I shouldnt be a topic for our concern, because Scotland whether Independent or not will remain as a bourgeois capitalist state

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm no expert on demographics but I imagine if you include Romanians/Bulgarians already living in other EU countries, the total exceeds 29 million.

So UKIP think that every single Romanian and Bulgarian is going to leave Romania and Bulgaria, as well as all the other places in Europe they are living, and come to the UK?


See above. Even if their figures aren't accurate, the exact same point applies to 27 million.

If you doubt the 29 million figure, apply the exact same situation to 27 million.

That doesn't address anything I have said to you. It doesn't address the fact that UKIP have constructed a fantasy to make some contrived point about something.


Strawman.

You should first address your own strawman argument before you attack others on that basis.


They aren't saying or implying that whatsoever in any way, shape or form.

Actually, yes it does. The statement "Next year the EU will allow 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians to come the UK" implies that 29 million is too many. So is 30,000 okay? 100,000? It doesn't actually make any statement for or against immigration, it simply states a series of lies.


They are just using the figures as an example to highlight how ridiculous remaining in the EU is.

But the example is hypothetical fantasy contrived to make some, as of yet, inexplicable point. You might be able to make some kind of case if it was actually true that the EU were allowing 29 million people to come to the UK, but since that isn't what is happening, what are you actually concerned with?

[Tim Cornelis]

I took my statistics from Wikipedia.

Here is the leaflet.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ukip-bulgaria-romania-leaflet.jpg

Well that's true. Technically 29 million people are allowed to enter the UK, of course it's a scare tactic because 'big numbers', it's suggestive and disingenuous (because it applies to the EU, not just the UK).


Finally, while the combined populations of the 2004 accession countries is around 70 million, Romania and Bulgaria have 29 million people between them, limiting the potential for mass immigration. But with UKIP likely to exploit the issue for all its worth in the local elections, the Tories are unlikely to dial down their rhetoric accordingly.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/how-fears-over-romanian-and-bulgarian-immigration-have-been-exaggerated


Curbs were imposed on Romanians and Bulgarians six years ago to protect the British labour market but they expire - and cannot be renewed - at the end of December, meaning 29 million people from the two countries will for the first time have full rights to move anywhere within the EU.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10013810/Diplomats-admit-35000-Romanian-and-Bulgarian-migrants-may-come-to-Britain.html


Romania has a population of 22 million and Bulgaria 7 million, 29 million in total; less than Poland’s 39 million people.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/franck-düvell/romanian-and-bulgarian-migration-to-britain-facts-behind-fear

[ckaihatsu]

It's easy to sugar-coat support of (insert-first-world-national-liberation-movement-here) as some kind of tactical move, but in reality there is an ethno-nationalist element to your support of it, whether you realise it or not.


Well, in line with your past (UKIP-based) disingenuousness, you're merely *referring* to an unexplained assertion here -- that I am somehow lending an ethno-nationalist stripe of support to Scotland's call for independence -- *instead* of actually making the argument.

Revolutionaries can *prove* that a real distinction exists between a fundamentally class-based politics, and short-term tactical positioning *around* that class understanding of the world -- simply look at how much discussion and activity centers around the class orientation, and anything else (secondarily), like national liberation movements.





It's obvious, reading the posts of several posters in this very thread, that this is the case for them.


More vacuous contentions....





I'll try to make it quite simple. The politics of independence definitely does one thing: draw the working class out of our own terrain, one of class struggle, and necessarily within the framework of nationalist infused class collaboration, which can only be interpreted as a step back for the class (and we surely don't need more steps back since the situation is, well, as it is today).


I'm hoping to emphasize that there's another line available to us here -- that any "lateral" moves within the bourgeoisie reveals the inherent weakness of their hierarchy structure (otherwise why would they have to reorganize -- ?). We should be ready to laugh hysterically at their nationalist cross-purposes and contortions in their prolonged efforts to resolve these impasse-type dilemmas.

We should be able to let people know that none of their corporate-type restructuring does the least bit of good for working people *anywhere*, and that we may as well be placing imaginary bets on the horse races for all the good any of this bourgeois land-slicing does any of us.

[The Feral Underclass]

Technically 29 million people are allowed to enter the UK

It's not technically the case on any level.

[Blake's Baby]

There is no relationship.

I have already explained the relationship between your take on (and the inherent link between) Scottish Independence and Nationalism.

Please, point out where you explain anything about my take on Scottish nationalism? Or even, summarise it now.


...using the figures as an example to highlight how ridiculous remaining in the EU is.

Quite. I mean, under EU law, Britain could empty itself next week (all 62 million of us could move to Spain) and there's nothing the Westminster government can do about it.

Kinda makes you think the Scots have got the right idea in wanting to be shot of Westminster, doesn't it?

[LiamChe]

The CPGB (ML) had an interesting article on Scottish Independence. http://blog.cpgb-ml.org/scotland-a-part-of-the-british-nation/

I'm not entirely supportive of the CPGB (ML), but I did find this article quite interesting. They argue that Scotland has become an integral part of the U.K. and therefore does constitute an independent nation. I don't entirely agree, but I do find their argument valid. I feel however believe that an argument could be made that Scotland is a nation.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1

After reading through this however I feel that Scotland could be defined as a nation and if so, it should be our obligation as communists to support the National Liberation of the Scottish proletariat.

[ckaihatsu]

Love bombing Scotland - UK steps up fight for union

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUFwcyfIWuo