Scottish/Welsh Independence

[Kez]

aight,

What do people think about Scotland being independent?
Would this be a good move?

What is so good for the Scottish Workers if the English Ruling Class is replaced more thoroughly with a Scottish Ruling class?

If the 2 countries split, surely it would weaken the working class as a whole, as strikes etc would be less effective.

For example the RMT strike includes scottish strikers, which puts more pressure on the capitalists in the UK as theyre getting hurt, however, surely the capitalists could hold out longer in England if they could rely on non-striking scottish workers.

In fact, Scottish Strikers would have no influence at all, as the Scottish Ruling class could use up non-striking english workers and production

For a Socialist Federation of Britain!
No war but class war!

[Funky Monk]

But on a purely part basis, New Labour derives a lot of its support from Scotland and Scottish MPs are amongst the most loyal to Tony.

[DaCuBaN]

Further segregation is absurd, but I'm not for 'socialist britain' either

I want to see what is thought of as 'Britain' burned to the ground... politically that is.

my opposition to socialist britain is purely elementary, but i vehemontly oppose independance, and is one of the few things I would take up arms to defend. We don't need more borders.

[Kez]

whats wrong with a socialist Britain?

[Reuben]

it is a wrong battle which in the long run will inhibit social progress. kez is right.

The fact is that a scottish railwaqy worker has far more in comon with is fellow workers i london thanh with his scottish manager. the point is too unite all oppressed elemnents in society around their common solution ie socialism.

[DaCuBaN]

socialist Britain?

Socialism in one country does not equal true socialism. I firmly believe socialism is an all or nothing affair. Hence my attitude towards reforms in the interim.

[Kez]

obviously a socialsit britain is the part of a world wide socialist revolution, of course you are correct socialism in one country is no socialism at all, but in terms of todays Britain, we should work for a socialist britain (as part of the world socialist federation) rather than support nationalist independence.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:38 AM
obviously a socialsit britain is the part of a world wide socialist revolution, of course you are correct socialism in one country is no socialism at all, but in terms of todays Britain, we should work for a socialist britain (as part of the world socialist federation) rather than support nationalist independence.
indeed while our process is global our first task is toi take on our own national bourgoiesie

[socialistfuture]

I guess the arguement is also this; what if Scotland can split from britian and become socialist. no scottish bosses, no Blair to send scots off to die. How many more lives must be lost in IMPERIALIST BRITAIN'S wars?

If you think England can kick out new labour and form a workers republic - how long would it take? There needs to be a first move - can Scotland make it?

Nationalism in general is something to think about; from basque country to chechnya. I know true socialism has no borders - but people are suffering... what can we do to help them. Don't need no civil war, or imperialist war.

In the end no one can make it alone - Cuba will fall if no one goes to their aid, same with Iraq, Venezuela or anywhere else.

If Scotland or Wales could do it - they could only do it with their comrades around the world. How do we end the power hold of neo-liberalism in Britian?

[redstar2000]

Communists have traditionally upheld the principle of national self-determination.

What that means, or ought to mean, is that we oppose first of all any effort by "our own" imperialists to "hold on" to any territory the people of which appear to want independence.

Many make the mistake of thinking that we must therefore actively "support" nationalism in "small" countries. I disagree with that interpretation of self-determination.

It's not our job to cheerlead for nationalism in other countries; if they prefer rule by a native ruling class, that's their call.

All communists have to do is actively oppose imperialism's efforts to preserve its domination.

So if a serious independence movement has emerged in Scotland or Wales -- or if one does emerge in the future -- all communists have to do is say what the consequences of that would be (rule by a native bourgeoisie)...and let it go.

But if England sends troops to Scotland or Wales, imposes martial law with mass arrests of pro-independence people, etc., then communists must act in opposition to English imperialism!

Communists in England do not have to be "for" or "against" independence for Scotland or Wales; what they must be is against any effort by England to hold onto these places.

The class enemy is in London.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

All communists have to do is actively oppose imperialism's efforts to preserve its domination

I agree in principle with your comments, but i really feel I must oppose nationalism in Scotland, on the basis that it's very much rooted in the glorification of the Scottish people

I know people living here who actually take Braveheart seriously!

This said, The primary supporters of independance are the SNP - Neo liberals, and hence not worthy of my spit.

England have done plenty to give scotland their 'say'. We don't have tuition fees for education up here when they do south of the border. Why? Because Westminster agreed to allow representation of Scottish interest within their own custom built parliament

Which, might I add is now some 2000% (yes, that's two thousand!) over budget :lol: :blink:
Whether, as redstar would no doubt assert, this is simply 'buying off' the independance advocates, or is truly because they dont want to waste their time on the matters of a small section of the populous I do not know.

What frightens me is that the SSP, my previous party of choice (given their determination to increase the minimum wage to the equivelant of US$20/hour) has recently decided that Independance is the way forward. I consider this to be the first step in their corruption :(


The class enemy is in London

Edinburgh too...

[Kez]

DaCuBan,
You are very correct in saying the class enemy is also in Edinburgh.

Can we compare tzarist russia to the UK, in that rule comes from London?

If so, let us see what happened, when the Revolution kicked off in Russia, i know that the Russian communists after winning in Russia, went to the other republics and helped the communists in these countries to defeat their bourgeoise too.

First off, is the UK a single state? It is isnt it? unlike England and France, England and Scotland have the same laws, so if our Scottish comrades were to revolt, i think it would be their duty to help us English comrades down south.

If we had a independent Scotland (with independent unions) this would be terrible blow for the strength of the Scottish Unions and also an effect on English workers. Imagine if the Scottish oil workers had had a strike when the British miners were striking, Thatcher would have been fucked.

If Scotland were to be an independent Capitalist country, and went to war with Britain, i believe it would be correct if we supported Scotland to win as a semi-colonial nation, and apply the theory of military defeatism, in that it would show the english workers how bankrupt the imperialist english state is, and increase their class consiousness.

I believe trotsky did the same with Britain and Brazil as an example of a war, where he supported Brazil, to show the British workers how bankrupt the capitalist systemin the UK is.

What do you think?

[DaCuBaN]

First off, is the UK a single state? It is isnt it? unlike England and France, England and Scotland have the same laws, so if our Scottish comrades were to revolt, i think it would be their duty to help us English comrades down south.


This is the nub in my opinion - Devolution is a small concession from London to appease the raving nationalists, and to divide and conquer the socialists. As you correctly assert, an independant scotland would destroy any power the unions have over our current rulers. (not that I agree with unions, but thats not the issue - nor do I need to to understand the situation)


If Scotland were to be an independent Capitalist country, and went to war with Britain, i believe it would be correct if we supported Scotland to win as a semi-colonial nation, and apply the theory of military defeatism, in that it would show the english workers how bankrupt the imperialist english state is, and increase their class consiousness.


I do agree with the principal behind this, but in reality it's untrue. The UK as we know it was first formed under a Scottish king and as such the real imperialists are the Scots.

Considering we have somewhat of a reputation from the UK's imperialist days for being tight with money and utterly ruthless this seems to fit.


I believe trotsky did the same with Britain and Brazil as an example of a war, where he supported Brazil, to show the British workers how bankrupt the capitalist systemin the UK is.


It didn't really work though ;) Sound principle again, but utterly futile. Some Leopards really can't change their spots.


Imagine if the Scottish oil workers had had a strike when the British miners were striking, Thatcher would have been fucked.

The big problem here of course, is that the Oil industry was so valuable to the UK economy at that time that Thatcher would have done anything to appease them.

Nowadays of course the oil is all owned by US conglomorates. Could you imagine what would happen if Scotland broke from England, became socialist and tried to nationalise the oilfields?

You bet... Imperialist war brought straight to our doorstep.

Maybe this should be something we focus on? Scotland can't be classified as a 'terrorist' state, or 'religious fundamentalist'... So what excuse could they really have?

That's provided of course that the UK plays the veto they owe the states in favour of Scotland...

[Reuben]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 12:47 AM
I guess the arguement is also this; what if Scotland can split from britian and become socialist. no scottish bosses, no Blair to send scots off to die. How many more lives must be lost in IMPERIALIST BRITAIN'S wars?

yes blair would have a few less soldiers to play with (given that i believe that only a fraction of British troops tend to be obilised even for an operation such as iraq this be greatly consequential).

On the other hand one of the most advanced sections of the British working class would be removd from the equation, they would no longer have any specific motivation to fight against blair's imperialism. On balance i think the British ruling class would have greater scope for imperialist adventure.

I think redstar has really got to the Nub of the issue. There is a difference between supporting the right toself-determintion and supporting it as a principle, as something which 'should' occur.

[Hate Is Art]

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have all recieved more independence over Labours years in power, and as RedStar said if Wales,Scotland and NI want full independence we should support them.

Although that is were it becomes confusing as you have elements of class struggle inter-twined with those of Nationilism, we would have to try and secure and Indepdent Socialist future for these countrys not some kind of nationilist religious state like Rep. of Ireland.

[VincentValentine]

I dont think they should be independant, there are already too many boarders up, they need tearing down. It's the wrong battle, these countries working class need to unite and remove their leader (Tony Wanker Blair).

[Fidel Castro]

We must remember that our goal is not for our own nation to be socialist, but to achieve a united, socialist World.

I am a Scot, and if in order to achieve socialism Scotland needs to adopt self-rule then that is a justifiable means to an end. After such action Scotland should not become isolationist or simply satisfy itself with it's own socialist identity, but work closely with English, Welsh, Irish and indeed all socialist comrades to encourage the growth and implementation of socialism within their own borders.

In my experience, socialism has a stronger foothold in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. Therefore, if we could implement socialism within an independent Scotland, which could then be used to influence and aid fellow socialists elsewhere, then I say it would be a correct action.

[kingbee]

but couldnt you call britain an imperialist state, having occupied all of the mainland states, and used them to their own benefits over the past 500 years?

i come from wales, and not a raving nationalist at all, but i do think that independence would do us good, as we would turn more left wing. the only tory seat in the whole country is monmouth, while much of wales is working class, former coal mining labours voters.

compared to the scottish, we dont have as much powers- they can set their own taxes, for example, while ours is set from london.

ok, maybe socialism should be international, but id rather go step by step, because i see more chance of wales, scotland turning socialist rather than britain as a whole

[h&s]

I'm English and while I'm not proud of our record in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, what does anyone have to gain from splitting from the UK?
We are all one country now, and according to the EU, England isn't even a country - the UK is.
We should be striving for a united world, so de-unifying our home country is not a good start.

I dont think they should be independant, there are already too many boarders up, they need tearing down.
Thats exactly what I think. The world has too many borders. Borders are just a way of separating man, and man should be united world over.

[Conghaileach]

What some people are overlooking is that the United Kingdom is not based on a political alliance between England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland's occupied six counties, but is based on the subjugation of the three latter states. The UK is to Scotland and Wales what NAFTA is to Mexico - it is there to fuck them over.

The devolution that Scotland and Wales have gotten under the New Labour government is limited to what the powers in London allow them to have, which is not much.

When Marx spoke of Ireland's national liberation struggle, he made it clear that the British Empire had to be completely broken up if the English workers were ever to be roused from their reactionary imperial mindsets. To do this also requires the independence of Scotland, Wales and a united Ireland.

As as for the people who are complaining of there being too much borders, maybe before they start shouting about their internationalism they should think about exactly what that means - international = 'between nations'.

The class war is carried out on a national basis because each nation has its own conditions of struggle. Its class antagonisms develop in different ways, so how can people cheer the continuation of Britain as an entity when the Welsh and Scottish peoples not only have to deal with their own bourgeoisie but with the English one as well?


"Such, in brief, is the real position of International Socialism towards subject nations. It is a concept based upon the belief that civilisation needs free nations just as the nations need free individual citizens, that the internationalism of the future will be based upon the free federation of free peoples, and cannot be realised through the sub jugation of the smaller by the larger political unit." - James Connolly, 1910

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 08:36 AM
I know people living here who actually take Braveheart seriously!
William Wallace did indeed exist.

[DaCuBaN]

I agree in principle with your comments, but i really feel I must oppose nationalism in Scotland, on the basis that it's very much rooted in the glorification of the Scottish people

I know people living here who actually take Braveheart seriously!

It makes a lot more sense in context, don't you think? ;)

The key point I made was that independance in Scotland (I cannot comment on N.Ireland or Wales) is very much rooted in national pride, and until this is expunged I don't believe independance would serve to further our cause.

There are no physical borders between our comrades to the south... no deserts, no impassable mountains. So why should we build walls where they do not exist?


What some people are overlooking is that the United Kingdom is not based on a political alliance between England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland's occupied six counties, but is based on the subjugation of the three latter states. The UK is to Scotland and Wales what NAFTA is to Mexico - it is there to fuck them over

The peoples of Scotland, Wales, England and to some extent Ireland faired far better than many under the British Empire. Wales and Ireland are of course in a different position to Scotland as they were overpowered, but the alliance between England and Scotland is political, as it was James VI of Scotland who went to sit on the throne of England and crowned his new principality the United ingdom


As as for the people who are complaining of there being too much borders, maybe before they start shouting about their internationalism they should think about exactly what that means - international = 'between nations'

We are very careful as to what we shout - hence why we call for Global Socialism. I would like to avoid oxymorons as much as everyone else ;)


The class war is carried out on a national basis because each nation has its own conditions of struggle. Its class antagonisms develop in different ways, so how can people cheer the continuation of Britain as an entity when the Welsh and Scottish peoples not only have to deal with their own bourgeoisie but with the English one as well?

Then by this justification, the real enemy is in fact devolution - It's a distraction for the Scottish, Welsh and Irish to leave our English comrades in the lurch.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 06:46 PM
It makes a lot more sense in context, don't you think? ;)
No. What did you mean by your reference to Braveheart, which was based on historial figures?



The key point I made was that independance in Scotland (I cannot comment on N.Ireland or Wales) is very much rooted in national pride, and until this is expunged I don't believe independance would serve to further our cause.
The question then becomes 'what is national pride?'. I love Irish culture - I'm an avid Gaeilgeoir, but I don't see Irish culture as being in any way superior to any other. I think that having our own identity helps us to respect other people's.



There are no physical borders between our comrades to the south... no deserts, no impassable mountains. So why should we build walls where they do not exist?
What walls do you believe woudl exist between a Scottish Socialist Republic and and English Socialist Republic?



the alliance between England and Scotland is political, as it was James VI of Scotland who went to sit on the throne of England and crowned his new principality the United ingdom
I take that you are referring here to the 1707 Treaty of Arbroath?

Robert Burns wrote a great song about it called 'Such A Parcel of Rogues' - I want to provide a quotation by Dick Gaughan about it:

Written by Robert Burns as a reflection on the signing of the Treaty of Union (1707) which theoretically dissolved the parliaments of Scotland and England/Wales, replacing them with the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
The Scottish Parliamentarians who signed the Treaty were literally bribed to sign it, with only a handful of them having the backbone to dissent, notably Fletcher of Saltoun. The principle of the Sovereignty of the people over government enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath was completely set aside in favour of personal advancement. The Treaty was, in truth, illegal as those parliamentarians signed away a right which was not theirs to give and the entire Union of Great Britain rests squarely upon a fraud against the Scottish people.

It is interesting that the Declaration of Arbroath, written in 1320, refers explicitly to the elected nature of the Scottish monarch and to the principle of Sovereignty resting absolutely with the people - this principle was eventually incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. The debt which those documents owe to the Declaration of Arbroath is one which is still not as widely recognised as it should be (the 'he' refered to is Robert Bruce, King of Scots) :

"Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."



Then by this justification, the real enemy is in fact devolution - It's a distraction for the Scottish, Welsh and Irish to leave our English comrades in the lurch.
Using this logic, would you oppose reforms made within the capitalist system because they might prevent a workers' uprising, and are used by the state to prevent the outbreak of revolution?

Are you saying that allowing Irish, Scottish and Welsh workers to create their Socialist Republics would be leaving English workers in the lurch? If anything, it would be an inpsiration to them.

[DaCuBaN]

I know people living here who actually take Braveheart seriously!

My obvious point was that there had been an increase in awareness of scottish nationalism based upon this film - which in itself is absurd.


The question then becomes 'what is national pride?'. I love Irish culture - I'm an avid Gaeilgeoir, but I don't see Irish culture as being in any way superior to any other.

I understand the point you are trying to make here; that you wouldn't dream of repressing another's cultural choices; of disallowing them a 'national identity'

To say you do not consider one culture superior than another, yet you love it and not others is a contradiction.


I think that having our own identity helps us to respect other people's

For what reason would this be any different in a united kingdom compared to independant british isles? Westminster makes millions off our 'cultural identity' as it is. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them?


The Scottish Parliamentarians who signed the Treaty were literally bribed to sign it, with only a handful of them having the backbone to dissent [...] The Treaty was, in truth, illegal as those parliamentarians signed away a right which was not theirs to give and the entire Union of Great Britain rests squarely upon a fraud against the Scottish people

Indeed, the political system involved in the union was highly flawed. Does this mean that we should be fighting hand in hand with nationalists ? To bring about a change that has been nullified over the years by inter-breeding amongst others?

I bloody well think not!


It is interesting that the Declaration of Arbroath, written in 1320, refers explicitly to the elected nature of the Scottish monarch and to the principle of Sovereignty resting absolutely with the people - this principle was eventually incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America

This is quite true, but The Treaty of Arbroath (http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm) refers to many other things as well that are far less favourable.
Not to mention this was simply a letter written to the pope in 1320 asking for intervension to stop the war between England and Scotland. What relevance does it really have 400 years later?


Using this logic, would you oppose reforms made within the capitalist system because they might prevent a workers' uprising, and are used by the state to prevent the outbreak of revolution?

Are you saying that allowing Irish, Scottish and Welsh workers to create their Socialist Republics would be leaving English workers in the lurch? If anything, it would be an inpsiration to them.

I find this quite laughable as most on this forum have branded me a reformist :D
I do not sit in either camp on this debate, simply because I believe neither to be correct. Some reforms are instituted with the sole basis of pacification, whereas others are instituted by well meaning peoples.

I believe devolution to be the former. I also believe that it will not end in Socialism.

[PRC-UTE]

The only reason one would oppose the breakup of the British state from a Left perspective is to create a british isles based on the Stalinist model. A difficult proposition even then, as the most class conscoius and revolutionary elements have always been in Wales and Ireland.

As Connolly said, "a free federation of free nations."

Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Mann, England are distinct nations. These are facts. The Empire creates more artificial boundaries and conflicts between different nationalities. The Welsh, Scots and Irish cling more to their identities more than ever. The breakup of the union would serve as a detante of cultural tensions at the very least.

We don't need a unified British state, we need One Big Union to cross national borders and unite workers over class issues. Worker unity does not result from Empires - or do you think working class American soldiers are forming bonds of solidarity in Iraq?

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 07:53 PM

My obvious point was that there had been an increase in awareness of scottish nationalism based upon this film - which in itself is absurd.





Although there are some idiots who have a new found Nationalism since this film came out, most supporters of Scottish independance would have no truck with these people. The real problem of Nationalism lies with the british nationalists in Scotland. Anyway of breaking up the UK is a good start. To see people in Scotland proudly fly the butchers apron and think it represents the nation is an insult to great men like Connolly and Mclean.

Of course there is no point replacing one capitalist state with another BUT the chances of an independant socialist Scotland are much higher than a Socialist britain.

And how the fuck can someone not love Irish culture without feeling its superior to another culture Dacuban? That makes no sense <_<

[DaCuBaN]

And how the fuck can someone not love Irish culture without feeling its superior to another culture Dacuban? That makes no sense

That was my point... endorsing any single culture is in essence saying that the given culture is better than any other.


most supporters of Scottish independance would have no truck with these people

Indeed - Politically both the SNP and SSP are trying for independance. Both have very different goals for the country (the latter would bring socialist reform, the former I see as doubtful - yet it is the former who have the majority support).


To see people in Scotland proudly fly the butchers apron and think it represents the nation is an insult to great men like Connolly and Mclean.


I get exactly the same feeling when I see the St.Andrews cross. Do people not understand all the heritage behind that flag also? Sure, Scotland never became a &#39;player&#39; and as such never had the chance to subjegate other nations. Don&#39;t let this fool you into thinking it wouldn&#39;t have happened. Many atrocities were carried out in the name of the UK by Scots, Irish and Welsh peoples.

[celticsocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 09:06 AM



I get exactly the same feeling when I see the St.Andrews cross. Do people not understand all the heritage behind that flag also? Sure, Scotland never became a &#39;player&#39; and as such never had the chance to subjegate other nations. Don&#39;t let this fool you into thinking it wouldn&#39;t have happened. Many atrocities were carried out in the name of the UK by Scots, Irish and Welsh peoples.
I always see the Saltire as a positive flag. It doesn`t represent a tyranical past, it remembers a people trying to hold on to their identity while living with a stronger neighbour. I also think it can represent what Scotland could be if we were to leave this union. Look at the pride the Cuban people have in their flag, it has come to mean a lot to them.

As for the loving Irish culture I meant that I don`t see a problem with loving a particular culture and I don`t see why that means you would have to feel it was superior to other cultures. Surely you can love the stories and songs and history of your home and also appreciate stories and songs from other countries? Its just that you maybe have more understanding and connection with local culture. Its not wrong its just how it is and always will be.

[monkeydust]

The key point I made was that independance in Scotland is very much rooted in national pride, and until this is expunged I don&#39;t believe independance would serve to further our cause.



Interesting.....

Your central point here seems to be that "nationalism is bad". I quite agree, and I support your calls for it to be "expunged".

What you wrongly assume, however, is that such nationalism will "fade away" without independence.

I personally feel that if Scots are strongly calling for independence (I don&#39;t know that they are), any attempt to deny them this will noticeably increase Scottish nationalism, to the point where class and ideological struggle in a broader sense will seem insignificant.

[DaCuBaN]

personally feel that if Scots are strongly calling for independence (I don&#39;t know that they are), any attempt to deny them this will noticeably increase Scottish nationalism, to the point where class and ideological struggle in a broader sense will seem insignificant.

I&#39;m Scottish. I was born in Scotland and I&#39;ve lived my life in Scotland. My parents were born in Scotland of parents born in Scotland (after that it gets a bit watered) The very last thing I want is Scottish independance.

This is the nature of the issue - there are two quite partisan sides to the debate.

I also think, at least in this part of the world the idea of class war is almost dead. Revolution may not be, but the idea of class being relevant seems very distant here and now...


What you wrongly assume, however, is that such nationalism will "fade away" without independence.

I do agree - and I get incredibly frustrated at it - I am literally impotent in a time of rising &#39;national identity&#39; to prevent the creation of more borders. Certainly, if Scotland did gain independance, it would do nothing to quell nationalism. It&#39;s a plague without a cure I feel.


I always see the Saltire as a positive flag. It doesn`t represent a tyranical past, it remembers a people trying to hold on to their identity while living with a stronger neighbour.

Yet when their chips were down, we went on the attack. We&#39;re no better than our southern comrades, and to my mind it&#39;s slowing social progress by seperating us from them.


Look at the pride the Cuban people have in their flag, it has come to mean a lot to them.

This is something I come to loggerheads with people on quite frequently: I don&#39;t see what&#39;s so special about a bit of cloth. The idea of a &#39;thing&#39; being representative of an idea - of a cause - is absurd to me. It smells of patriotism from here. Frankly, I don&#39;t think ones country is ever anything to be proud of - irregardless of the circumstances under which it arrived.


As for the loving Irish culture I meant that I don`t see a problem with loving a particular culture and I don`t see why that means you would have to feel it was superior to other cultures

I don&#39;t - to be honest I was being somewhat pedantic. I&#39;m not much of a one for preserving culture of any kind. I really don&#39;t see what we have to gain from a retrospective society of this kind.


Surely you can love the stories and songs and history of your home and also appreciate stories and songs from other countries?

Sure - but it intimates that there are cultures out there that you don&#39;t like.


Its just that you maybe have more understanding and connection with local culture. Its not wrong its just how it is and always will be.


I hope not&#33; :lol:


To see people in Scotland proudly fly the butchers apron and think it represents the nation is an insult

To see any flag flown or to see any nation promoted is an insult in my eyes.

[Invader Zim]

Who actually cares? Really? My mother is Welsh and she doesn&#39;t care. I cant speak for the Scottish but in my experiance of my Welsh family, none of them give a shit. Its a none issue. I imagine that is the same in Scotland, but like I said I dont know for sure.

[celticsocialist]

Dacuban, you make some good points.
I still disagree with most of them but :D
Cant imagine anything worse than a world where everywhere you go there is no local custom or tradition.

Let the people sing their stories and their songs.
And the music of their native land.
Their lullabies and battle cries and songs of hope and joy.
So join us hand in hand.
All across this ancient land, throughout the test of time.
It was music that kept their spirits free.
Those songs of yours and mine. :ph34r:

[socialistfuture]

culture is something to be valued and celebrated - i take the celebrate diversity approach. i think the fight against monoculture is an important part of the anti globalization (globalisze resistance) /anti capitalist movement.

if scotland, wales or ireland were to become indepent the links between comrades would not be broken.

to anyone saying ireland should be seperate read &#39;trinity&#39; by leon uris - the irish have gone to hell and back - under british occupation.

if they did become indendent i think the borders would be more figurative than structural - the republican/socialist slant is different to the nationalist/capitalist one - indepence from imperialist powers is a right.