Scottish and Welsh nationalism

[Dr Mindbender]

Ive heard many a comrade dismiss the SNP and plaid Cymru as divide and conquering reactionaries, however if you consider the political implications then it doesnt seem all doom and gloom. For example, the Scottish and Welsh establishments are not so rampant over the scaremongering tactics about asylum as their counterparts in Westminster, so allowing local governments to take their own border controls could imply a more progressive stance than under London rule. Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru describe themselves as 'left of centre' and bother parties were vocal anti-Blairites, certainly at least during the Iraq quagmire.
Secondly, there are the repercussions for Ireland. If Wales and Scotland were to pull out of the union, the 'UK' would be meaningless, forcing the naked English hegemony off the Island, Emperor's clothes style. The culture within ulster unionism that links it to britain is the shared celtic connection with Scotland. With Scotland as an independent state, The London beaureaucrats would have no role within the 6 counties.

[bolshevik butcher]

I sincerely doubt that Scotland breaking away now allow the completion of the national liberation of Ireland I'm afraid. Yes both Parties where the guise of being a progressive left alternative when out of power, any bourgeoirse party can afford to do that. They never argued anything on class lines, and never recieved support from the organised working class movement. They just have some left populist policies.

Do left wing governments support the proposed closure of schools and limiting abortion rights? That's what we've seen of the SNP in local and national government of late. These parties are bourgeoirse parites like any other, nationalism reamins a danger and something that causes division in the working class movement as it always has done.

[Dr Mindbender]

I dont know what the situation is in Wales, but all I hear is that since devolved policies were introduced the lives of ordinary Scottish people have improved. Medical care is more widely available than under direct English rule, and the MSP's succeeded in reversing tuition fees so that Scottish students pay nothing to go to university. That has to set a positive precedence.

Also I do definitley think that if Wales and Scotland pulled out of the UK, it would deal a death blow to Ulster Unionism. You couldnt have a union just between England and Northern Ireland, that would just be silly.

[Zurdito]

Scotland and Wales were firstly raped for natural resources and labour by the centres of British capital, then when they were no longer of use on that front they had their economies crushed from London. So as far as I'm concerned they have a right to resist Westminster rule.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 12:43 am
I dont know what the situation is in Wales, but all I hear is that since devolved policies were introduced the lives of ordinary Scottish people have improved. Medical care is more widely available than under direct English rule, and the MSP's succeeded in reversing tuition fees so that Scottish students pay nothing to go to university. That has to set a positive precedence.

Also I do definitley think that if Wales and Scotland pulled out of the UK, it would deal a death blow to Ulster Unionism. You couldnt have a union just between England and Northern Ireland, that would just be silly.
Its not that different to be honest. And of course the SNP have been in power for only a few months now, previously the Labour/Lib Dem executive was really just a duplicate of the one in london.

The SNP Executive is a little better. I can't deny that things like abolishing prescriptions charges and student fees and the like are obviously beneficial and the SNP is demonstrably less racist as the aftermath of that incident at Glasgow airport showed, but really these are just nice little things on the margin. At its core the SNP is just more of the same, albeit dressed up in nicer words.

As for Scottish independence, it may or may not be a good thing depending on the circumstances. I am afraid to say I personally will simply take the cynical line of supporting itwhere I believe it could help the long term prospects of socialism and opposing it when I believe it will harm it

[Dr Mindbender]

The other advantage of an independent scotland is that the left has a much bigger voice there (doesnt the SSP have about 5 MSP's?) than in England. An independent Scottish parliament would therefore make it easy to get a foothold in power than in the English parliament. The SNP may not be socialist, but as a ruling party they could always be voted out.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 01:01 am
The other advantage of an independent scotland is that the left has a much bigger voice there (doesnt the SSP have about 5 MSP's?) than in England. An independent Scottish parliament would therefore make it easy to get a foothold in power than in the English parliament. The SNP may not be socialist, but as a ruling party they could always be voted out.
I believe the SSP were wiped out in the last election unfortunately.

[Philosophical Materialist]

I am rather sceptical. The SNP terms for a new Scottish state is one on neoliberal bourgeois lines. Over the past ten years the SNP has moved away from a social democratic platform to a neoliberal platform in order to reassure "big business" and gain wealthy backers.

Plaid Cymru do seem to have a semblance of left policies, but they have seemingly dropped any notion of independence in favour of greater autonomy for a Welsh legislature and government within Britain. Plaid is a reformist outfit which is concerned with Welsh cultural matters rather than being based around working class organisation.

The SSP was on to something but unfortunately it split in two and imploded, however it did have democratic socialist credentials and seemed to be working class based. A Scottish republic on a SSP model would have been far more preferable to a SNP one, but I think a British-wide working class organisation is more preferable to either the SSP or Plaid models.

A SNP Scotland will be governed by capital still, but the bourgeois faces in government will look a little different. The SSP unfortunately doesn't look like it can recover but it would have been interesting to see what it could have done in power, however I suspect a Scottish reformist socialist republic would have been strangled by capitalist élites in Europe's capitals.

I suspect a successful revolution in Britain would be one which is British-wide, where the working class takes control of the vast capital in London and Edinburgh, as well as the remaining industrial and primary sector areas throughout Britain.

Either way this has no impact on the decolonisation of Ireland. It appears that the six counties will come under control of the 26-county bourgeois Irish state within a generation. It won't bring about an Irish socialist republic unless the working class successfully rose up against the bourgeoisie in the south and the unionist chauvinist/petit-nationalist coalition in the north, which I don't see happening any time soon.

[Colonello Buendia]

The SNP is bad news for the reason that they want independence and their incredibly populist policies. I'd rather stay British as well as Scottish plus I think the only chance Britain has of shaking off capitalism is a United Kingdom wide revolution.

[BobKKKindle$]

I am rather sceptical. The SNP terms for a new Scottish state is one on neoliberal bourgeois lines. Over the past ten years the SNP has moved away from a social democratic platform to a neoliberal platform in order to reassure "big business" and gain wealthy backers.

Fully agree. From 8 September 2007:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12954

'A vigorous campaign by parents and pupils has put a stop to Edinburgh city council's proposal to close one in six schools. Within three weeks of announcing the plans, Scottish National Party (SNP) councillors, who run the council in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, have been driven to withdraw their support. '

[Dr Mindbender]

I still dont understand why Scottish independence in itself is a bad thing. Why should it be any less progressive than the liberation of say Ireland or Hong Kong? The Scottish people were also once under brutal oppression, the difference being the English beourgiouse managed to castrate resistance. To me this is the biggest and perhaps only difference to the situation in Ireland.

[spartan]

I think it is dangerous to think of yourself as a seperate Nationality. Are we not all Proletariats regardless of culture, ethnicity, Nationality and/or race? The fact is the various cultures that we come from have been and are still successfully being used by the Bourgeoisie to divide the Proletariat along now non existent National lines. The fact is it is now claimed that half of all English people have a Scottish ancestory and half of all Scots have English ancestory so no one can really call themselves a pure Englishman or pure Scotsman anymore can they! So what is the point of independence for these regions when they are practically the same as their neighbours except for their accent?

As a Welshman i am proud of my country and its culture, history and language (And its resistance to the English) but as an Anarchist i understand that one day there will be no more culture or Nationality to keep dividing the Proletariat and i would trade all the good things about being Welsh to have an Anarchist society anyday. And that is what we as Proletariats must fight for not Nationalist seperatist inspired groups who keep using a centuries old history to justify something that will never be allowed to happen anyway (Independence from the UK). We should be fighting for the Proletariat whatever culture or race they come from not Nationalist seperatist inspired groups who wish to divide the Proletariat along non existent and unimportant National lines for why should ones Nationality matter to the Proletariat? Are we not all equal? Regardless of Nationality especially in our struggle?

US:
The Scottish people were also once under brutal oppression
Yes they were but you said it yourself the Scots were ONCE under brutal oppression. Are they still under oppression now? The answer of course is yes as they live under a Capitalist system but they are no more oppressed then your average Englishman or Welshman so why should they have independence for it? Dividing the Proletariat even further is a bad idea in my opinion. As leftists we should be trying to group together as many Proletariats as possible not divide them into petty almost non existent Nationalities and and aid/support the Bourgeoisie in their divide and conquer stratergy.

[Cencus]

Scotland will for the forseeable future stay part of the union. Any decision on independance would have to go thru Westminster, which is controlled by 2 parties who for thier own reasons will stop the breakup of the U.K.. The Tories are still stuck with a unionist doctrine as the basis of thier party after they are called The Conservative & Unionist Party. Labour won't let Scotland go because it's a guarenteed 50 seats in Westminster above the conservatives. The Lib Dems are irrelevent & on a U.K. scale so are the nationalist parties.

As to Scotland being less racist in England, I dare anyone to go out on the piss in a Scottish city on a Saturday night in an England football top. Last year newsnight parked a car on an estate in Scotland that was flying England flags, within 5 minutes were gone kids were out trashing it, funny as in some ways, but worrying in others.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 12:05 pm
I still dont understand why Scottish independence in itself is a bad thing. Why should it be any less progressive than the liberation of say Ireland or Hong Kong? The Scottish people were also once under brutal oppression, the difference being the English beourgiouse managed to castrate resistance. To me this is the biggest and perhaps only difference to the situation in Ireland.
The differences between Scotland and Ireland are much bigger than that.

Firstly there was not any displacement of Scottish élites by English élites in the style of Ireland. We should also not forget the internal Scottish dynamics between Lowlands Scots speakers and the Highland Gaelic speakers, which the former considered culturally backward.

After the Scottish reformation, Scotland increasingly saw England as a guaranteer of Scottish protestantism against catholic Spain. After the union of the crowns in 1603, the Scots alongside the English benefited from plantations in Ireland at the expense of local Irish catholics and 'Old English' catholics.

There was no specific English oppression of Scots in the modern age. The Lowlands Scots-speaking bourgeoisie united with the English gentry and bourgeoisie to destroy the Highland clan system and its catholic foothold in the 1715 and 1745/6 Jacobite rebellions. Indeed it was the Lowlands Scots who were amongst the most enthusiastic about union in 1707 with the prospect of access to a British-wide market without tariffs. Capital in Edinburgh and Glasgow benefited from British imperialism, the surplus value of which financed the industrial revolution and imperial expansionism.

Over three hundred years of political union Scots, English and Welsh have intermarried and integrated culturally which makes an argument for separation very difficult. Especially when the most likely form separation will be done on petit-nationalist neoliberal lines.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:34 pm
Scotland will for the forseeable future stay part of the union. Any decision on independance would have to go thru Westminster, which is controlled by 2 parties who for thier own reasons will stop the breakup of the U.K.. The Tories are still stuck with a unionist doctrine as the basis of thier party after they are called The Conservative & Unionist Party. Labour won't let Scotland go because it's a guarenteed 50 seats in Westminster above the conservatives. The Lib Dems are irrelevent & on a U.K. scale so are the nationalist parties.

As to Scotland being less racist in England, I dare anyone to go out on the piss in a Scottish city on a Saturday night in an England football top. Last year newsnight parked a car on an estate in Scotland that was flying England flags, within 5 minutes were gone kids were out trashing it, funny as in some ways, but worrying in others.
I think the idea of a SNP-Tory "unholy" alliance isn't so far-fetched. A lot of little Englander Tories have a tremendous loathing of Scotland, Wales, and northern England due to their traditional allegiance to the Labour Party. I have heard Tories speak of Scottish independence as a good idea especially after the 2005 election. In the 2005 election the Tories received the most votes in England which made Tories wonder out-loud if Scottish independence wasn't so bad after all, especially if it could guarantee Tory dominance in England without those pesky Scots Labour and Lib Dem MPs.

[Dr Mindbender]

It seems then the rationale for english and scottish/welsh amalgamation then was done purely in the interests of the beourgiouse on both sides of the border. How then do you marry the contination of the union in terms of proletarian interests?
It doesnt seem like there was 'anything in it for them' from day 1.

Originally posted by philosphical materialist

I think the idea of a SNP-Tory "unholy" alliance isn't so far-fetched. A lot of little Englander Tories have a tremendous loathing of Scotland, Wales, and northern England
Yes, and this brings me neatly back to my point about Ireland. The thing i've noticed is that within the little englander hegemony, is that there is massive ignorance - nay, contempt regarding the population of N.Ireland and its political status. To many there they are deserving of the same chauvinist slandering usually reserved for the Irish stereotype, and as such the unionist lobby within Ireland have a misplaced loyalty to the mainland beourgiouse classes. I have lived on both sides of the Irish sea, so I know what I'm talking about.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+September 30, 2007 01:44 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ September 30, 2007 01:44 pm)It seems then the rationale for english and scottish/welsh amalgamation then was done purely in the interests of the beourgiouse on both sides of the border. How then do you marry the contination of the union in terms of proletarian interests?
It doesnt seem like there was 'anything in it for them' from day 1.

philosphical materialist

I think the idea of a SNP-Tory "unholy" alliance isn't so far-fetched. A lot of little Englander Tories have a tremendous loathing of Scotland, Wales, and northern England
Yes, and this brings me neatly back to my point about Ireland. The thing i've noticed is that within the little englander hegemony, is that there is massive ignorance - nay, contempt regarding the population of N.Ireland and its political status. To many there they are deserving of the same chauvinist slandering usually reserved for the Irish stereotype, and as such the unionist lobby within Ireland have a misplaced loyalty to the mainland beourgiouse classes. I have lived on both sides of the Irish sea, so I know what I'm talking about.[/b]
Yes, modern capitalist states in general are by their nature governed by the wishes of the bourgeois class. In the past two hundred years, the English, Scottish and Welsh proletariat have had the same struggle against the British bourgeoisie. A federal proletarian British state seems to be the logical conclusion to the class struggle within Britain.

You do bring up a good point about unionists in the Northern Irish state. Some British Tories see northern Irish protestants as "not really British", although this position is not a principled position on decolonisation, but rather seeing Northern Ireland as a economic drain on the UK treasury (which could be used to cut taxes for wealthy British élites).

Other homegrown unionists have sought to hold on to Northern Ireland for the sake of prestige, but I think Ulster Unionism is on its last legs. In the past the protestant working classes were given a privileged economic and social position in Northern Ireland (a situation enforced by British funds and physical force) at the expense of catholics but this is being eroded. Abandoned by the British bourgeoisie, working class protestants are less likely to seek common cause with northern middle class unionists.

[YKTMX]

I don't know much, if anything, about the Welsh example but I do think perhaps some of the comrades are being a touch unfair to the nationalists.

Philosophical Materialist:


Over the past ten years the SNP has moved away from a social democratic platform to a neoliberal platform in order to reassure "big business" and gain wealthy backers.


This is a bit simplistic. Salmond, in the lead-up to the election, was not shy about calling his manifesto "social democratic" in public. He's said previosuly, in the early 90's, that he was a "socialist and proud of it".

They did cozy up to big business in the last election in terms of the suport they received from Brian Souter, an egregious bourgeois homophobe, and George Matheson, a former head of the RBS. But this is more about reassuring the petty and "full" bourgeoisie about the economic consequences of indepdendence. They were not exactly singing from the rooftops about the money they received from Souter. I mean, it's not like they're putting him in government like the Satanists did with Lord Sainsbury or the obnoxious windbag Digby Jones.

In terms of the practicalities of their policies, some of them are:

1) Opposition to the war in Iraq (Afghan is more complicated)
2) Opposition to Nuclear Weapons (particularly important in Scotland since the Trident programme is run from the Clyde)
3) Opposition to Private companies being "more involved" in running the health and prison services
4) The replacement of the council tax with a local income tax (a policy first adopted in Scotland by the SSP)
5) The use of North Sea Oil Revenue to create a "future fund" a la Norway
6) And, of course, Scottish Independence (something I'd conditionally support)


Now, I'm not suggesting they're about to run the Red Banner up the flag pole, but in terms of our politics, their victory was a good thing. For one, it was a blow to the Labour Party, that has done nothing for Scottish working class in the 50 years they've been running things here. Secondly, most SNP voters were ex-SSP voters, and most of them voted for them in part in anger at the Labour Party and opposition to our sordid behaviour in the Middle East.


The Nationalists as a political force have always been one of competing currents. There has been a strong, Walter Scott loving, Tartan hoardes brigade. There has also always been a strong Left with the SNP, favouring a Republican Scotland (an interesting issue within the SNP) and some form of socialism or social democracy. Salmond himself has always been associated with the latter of these currents. He was actually expelled from the party in 1979 for advocating turning the SNP into an explicitly socialist group. He was later re-admitted, of course, although he never formally recanted that position.

Of course, we can't be complacent, there are two ways it could go now. The SNP could follow through on some of the policies (Trident, local income tax, mild redistribution) or they could abandon them completely in favour of "responsible" bourgeois governance. The job of the left, both in that party and without, is to make sure that the pressure is kept up on Salmond to follow through.

This is of course guesswork, but my guess is that Salmond, at heart, is a man of the left and would like to, as it were, change things.

We'll see.

[Philosophical Materialist]

I appreciate your thoughtful post YKTMX, but you are being rather optimistic about the potential of a SNP-run republic or monarchist Scottish state. I doubt Salmond would say he was a socialist today, much like New Labour illumini. He is a petit-nationalist with a form of approachable liberal-populism. He was the best out of major bourgeois party leaders in Scotland but I would be deeply surprised that the SNP will go to the left in power.

I do agree that their victory in the Holyrood elections was more preferable to a Labour victory, but I suspect the SNP talks more 'left' than what it actually is (much like the Liberal Democrats).

[spartan]

Scotland wont get independence as the current prime minister of the UK, of which Scotland is apart, Gordon Brown, just happens to be Scottish and the constituency that the PM represents is also in Scotland so if Scotland became independent Brown would be out of his job as PM as the constituency that Brown represents would not be apart of the UK anymore! So you can bet that he will fight Scottish independence with all his might.

Also independence for Scotland is supported by what 20% or less of the population? Which in the UK means you are in Lib Dem territory in other words nowhere significant. Also think about the military side of things because do you honestly believe that the Scottish regiments and its soldiers who are an integral part of the UK armed forces will allow Scottish independence? Because i do not think they will allow it as they for the most part either believe in the union fully by themselves before joining the army to serve her majesty anyway or are indoctrinated to believe in the union during their stint in the army. Also Scotland houses the UK's only nuclear weapons so the unionists will not be willing to lose them!

All in all independence for Nationalities (Which are so mixed anyway with other Nationalities as is the case with the Scottish and Welsh) is a bad idea as it divides/splits the Proletariat into more seperate groups and Nationalities which i dont think helps our cause as we need Proletariats of whatever Nationality or race to band together for the common good not seperate themselves further for Nationalist inspired reasons. If they wanted independence for Proletariat reasons then i would support it but the only people wanting Scottish independence right now are a few opportunistic buisness people, neo-Liberal populist opportunists and a few confused leftists (Mostly silly students clutching on to something which is seen as different and "non comformist" to the establishment). The only reason the SNP won the elections was because of voters who were disillushioned with New Labour and Tony Blair and because of anti war sentiments not because they wanted independence for Scotland!

[bolshevik butcher]

The Scotland Ireland comparisson is in my view entirely invalid. As someone perhaps looking at national oppression from England/Britian from an Irish perspective I can see why you would make the link ulster socialist but there are differences. Ireland was brutally crushed by English/British expansionism/colonialism. It's was forced into the British Empire at the point of a sword and swallowed up by the British ruling class. Scotland is an entirely different case. Scotland wasn't forced into Britain at all. The act of union represented in many ways the emergence of the political power of the Scottish bourgoirse. It was in their class intersts to have Scotland as part of Britian, and they have gone onto profit vastly from it as a result.

Scottish people are not oppressed for being Scottish. Exploited as workers yes, but so are workers all over Britain. Ireland was clearly violenctly suppressed and its culture and national identity attacked by the British ruling class. Scotland is not the same. Some may point to the highalnd clearances, but this is false. This was the implimnetation of capitalism to the backward highaldn region by the British bourgoirisie incluing large numbers of Scottish capitalists.

[Andy Bowden]

Scotland wasn't forced into Britain at all. The act of union represented in many ways the emergence of the political power of the Scottish bourgoirse. It was in their class intersts to have Scotland as part of Britian, and they have gone onto profit vastly from it as a result.

Scotland wasn't forced into the union? Come on Ewan, even most die-hard Unionist historians accept that the Act of Union in 1707 was extremely unpopular among most Scots at the time. The Scots Nobles had to sign it in secret ffs.

[bolshevik butcher]

As I said, it was in the interests of Scotland's ruling class. Or was Scotlands ruling class brutally suppressed like Irelands?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 12:26 am
Ive heard many a comrade dismiss the SNP and plaid Cymru as divide and conquering reactionaries, however if you consider the political implications then it doesnt seem all doom and gloom. For example, the Scottish and Welsh establishments are not so rampant over the scaremongering tactics about asylum as their counterparts in Westminster, so allowing local governments to take their own border controls could imply a more progressive stance than under London rule.
This is reformist bullshit. We can spend hours mixing and matching the pros and cons of various states policies.

It makes very little material difference to the working class, whether they have foriegn or domestic capitalist bussinismen and statesmen. Capitalist development will continue, undemocratic central decision making will continue, environmental destruction will continue, wage slavery and the exploitation of the ruling class will continue. That doesn't sound like a state of affairs worht fighting for. And it certainly doesnt sound progresive.

Sometimes governments make decisions that benefit us in some way, sometimes they make ones that are detrimental to us. The point however, is that they make the decisions.

The scotish and Welsh nationalists (and even the cornish ones) should learn from James conolly...

"If you remove the English army to-morrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organisation of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain.

England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.

England would still rule you to your ruin, even while your lips offered hypocritical homage at the shrine of that Freedom whose cause you had betrayed."

[Goatse]

These independence movements are ridiculous

It deludes the working class into believing the solutions to their problems lie with nationalism, and if Scotland or Wales gained independence it would just build walls between the working class of England, Scotland and Wales

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 09:15 pm
These independence movements are ridiculous

It deludes the working class into believing the solutions to their problems lie with nationalism, and if Scotland or Wales gained independence it would just build walls between the working class of England, Scotland and Wales
I wasnt ever arguing that nationalism is a meaningful 'solution', more it could be a better 'half-way house' to acheiving socialist objectives since the left have a lot more kudos within the confines of scotland and wales than they do within westminster.
Jees, this is what i meant about people round here being so quick to shut the debate down because they cant see socialist progression in any other context than pan-UK. Anyway, does it really matter if socialism doesnt occur all across the UK, all at the same time? If socialism could even get a foothold of power on the british mainland it would send out the red ripples far and wide!

[Andy Bowden]

As I said, it was in the interests of Scotland's ruling class. Or was Scotlands ruling class brutally suppressed like Irelands?

Well Ewan you said Scotland wasn't forced into the Union, which I took to mean Scotland democratically decided to enter the Union - ie through popular support.

What do you define as a ruling class though? Many Baathists who were formerly in the Saddam govt have now joined the Iraqi Govt for example, they have not been brutally suppressed but have gone along with a project of national oppression because it suits them.

And even if the Scottish ruling class was not brutally oppressed, isn't the more important aspect to look at its how the general populace were treated in the Union, ie the banning of gaelic, crushing of the 1820 uprising etc?

[redrogue]

As a Scot, I support inderpendence!

Why should London decide to dump there nukes in Scotland?

Why should they decide if men and woman born in Scotland should be sent to foreign lands to be killed?

Why should they take the money from the North Sea Oil and gas when its in our waters?

Why should London euro mp's decide how much fish Scottish fisherman can catch and when they can catch it?

Why does American miltary planes fly into our airports and use our prisons and places to torture people?

Also why are we a refueling station for the yanks to transport illegal missles to Israel to drop on civillians?

Answer controlled by London and we do not have democracy in this country.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:53 am
As a Scot, I support inderpendence!

As a worker, I support working class independance from all states! and not the scotish ruling class' independance from london, which would see the workers fucked by an indegeanous power-structure, instead of a foreign one.


Why should London decide to dump there nukes in Scotland?

So if a scotish parliament allowed it (which they would) that would be acceptable?

Of coruse not. The working class of both England and scotland should take power! not, a scotish elite!


Why should they decide if men and woman born in Scotland should be sent to foreign lands to be killed?

Again, the scotish parliament would be no different. If the scotish government sent scotish workers off to die in Iraq, that would be acceptable?


Why should they take the money from the North Sea Oil and gas when its in our waters?

The English government doesn't. Coorporations do, and even if the coororations were rubber stamped by Edinburgh instead of London, the workers still wouldn't see a penny of the profits!


Why should London euro mp's decide how much fish Scottish fisherman can catch and when they can catch it?

They're forced to make these restrictions based on the global market, and super-rich lobbyists. Scotish MPs would be the same. They would still be in bed with the capitalists, and by arguing for independace from England, and not for workers control, you imply that such a state of affaris would be acceptable.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:34 pm
As to Scotland being less racist in England, I dare anyone to go out on the piss in a Scottish city on a Saturday night in an England football top. Last year newsnight parked a car on an estate in Scotland that was flying England flags, within 5 minutes were gone kids were out trashing it, funny as in some ways, but worrying in others.
They have a legitimate reason to be angry at the English and are justified in not wanting symbols of imperial repression in their backyards; unionist parties like New Lieblair and the Tories have no legitimate reason to mistreat refugess.

And while if what you are telling me about abortion laws is true, I'm extremely disappointed, it was New Lieblair that appointed a fucking Opus Dei member to head some committee on LGBT equality. They might as well start flying the Goddamn falange if this is their attitude towards human rights.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 02, 2007 09:40 am
nd even if the Scottish ruling class was not brutally oppressed, isn't the more important aspect to look at its how the general populace were treated in the Union, ie the banning of gaelic, crushing of the 1820 uprising etc?
This was enforced by the Scottish ruling class as much as anyonelse. The banning of gaelic, highland clearences etc were acts of the Scottish bourgorise, suppression of the 1820 rebellion etc were acts of the bourgroisie as a whole, including the Scottish one. They were not acts in my view of an outside imperialism.

You mention the lack of popular support at the time. Let's look at things now though. I support Scotland's right to self determination but dont believe that it should be exercised. I don'tbelieve there is a popular demand for it to be, given that all polls show most people in Scotland don't want independence.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:53 am
As a Scot, I support inderpendence!

Why should London decide to dump there nukes in Scotland?

Why should they decide if men and woman born in Scotland should be sent to foreign lands to be killed?

Why should they take the money from the North Sea Oil and gas when its in our waters?

Why should London euro mp's decide how much fish Scottish fisherman can catch and when they can catch it?

Why does American miltary planes fly into our airports and use our prisons and places to torture people?

Also why are we a refueling station for the yanks to transport illegal missles to Israel to drop on civillians?

Answer controlled by London and we do not have democracy in this country.
A bourgeois capitalist Scottish state would not end hardly any of that. European MEPs will still decide agricultural and fisheries policy because the SNP is committed to EU membership.

Such a state would still be beholden to European and US capital and nothing will change.

Socialism can change things, not bourgeois petit-nationalism.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 02, 2007 09:40 am
And even if the Scottish ruling class was not brutally oppressed, isn't the more important aspect to look at its how the general populace were treated in the Union, ie the banning of gaelic, crushing of the 1820 uprising etc?
You need to consider the dichotomy between the Lowlands Scots-speaking bourgeoisie and the Highland Gaelic-speakers. This was a continuance of cultural and class struggle within Scotland between Scottish groups.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 02, 2007 11:29 am
They have a legitimate reason to be angry at the English and are justified in not wanting symbols of imperial repression in their backyards; unionist parties like New Lieblair and the Tories have no legitimate reason to mistreat refugess.
Scotland is not oppressed by imperialism, it is oppressed by bourgeois capitalism.

[bolshevik butcher]

As a Scot, I support inderpendence!
This is where the rest of your in my view mistaken views stem from. Your post reads as a scot as though you view the main struggle in society as being a national struggle. Surely as socialists we view the struggle as being a class struggle? The workers of Scotland, England and Wales must fight against the British ruling class together. It would be a disaster for the British working class to be split along national lines and so incapable of uniting in common cause against the ruling class.


Why should London decide to dump there nukes in Scotland?

Why should they decide if men and woman born in Scotland should be sent to foreign lands to be killed?

Why should they take the money from the North Sea Oil and gas when its in our waters?

Why should London euro mp's decide how much fish Scottish fisherman can catch and when they can catch it?

Why does American miltary planes fly into our airports and use our prisons and places to torture people?

Also why are we a refueling station for the yanks to transport illegal missles to Israel to drop on civillians.
These are descisions made by the British ruling class for their class interest. Why would it be any different if an independent Scotland made the same descision. The fight has to be fought on class lines. US military bases, impeiralist wars, nuclear weapons etc are symptoms of imperialism and the capitalist world that we live in, not the union. Even if an independent Scotland was reached and these things were moved a couple of hundered miles down the road to England what difference would it make? These things would still play the same role in global impeiralis as they do now.

London Euro MPs? Euro MPs are elected from all over Europe... The EU is a bosses club, and as socialists we should fight against it and for a united socialist Europe but it is hardly ran exclusively from London, it is ran by the ruling classes of various European countries.


Answer controlled by London and we do not have democracy in this country.
Answer, controlled by the ruling capitalist class. Without socialism there is no true democracy, Lenin accurately compared democracy in capitalism to that in ancient greece, democracy for the slave owners. Be it in a capitalist Scotland or Britain this remains true and only raising the banner of an internaitonal socialist alternative can we truely pose the demand for true demoracy.

[Cencus]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+October 02, 2007 11:29 am--> (Cheung Mo @ October 02, 2007 11:29 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 01:34 pm
As to Scotland being less racist in England, I dare anyone to go out on the piss in a Scottish city on a Saturday night in an England football top. Last year newsnight parked a car on an estate in Scotland that was flying England flags, within 5 minutes were gone kids were out trashing it, funny as in some ways, but worrying in others.
They have a legitimate reason to be angry at the English and are justified in not wanting symbols of imperial repression in their backyards; unionist parties like New Lieblair and the Tories have no legitimate reason to mistreat refugess. [/b]
What? Imperial oppression? The Scottish parliament signed the act of union because our Imperial adventures had gone very pear shaped and bankrupty the country. Signing the 1707 Act was a way of saving Scotland from the bailiffs n not much more.

What acts of Imperial oppression were done by the English?

The slaughters of the highland clans? Nope that was done by fellow Scots.

The Highland clearances? Nope that was the Scottish Lords fucking over thier own people.

Throughout history most of the shitty stuff done to Scots was almost always done by fellow Scots. Oh we got the Poll Tax 1 year early, that was actually done because the rates in Scotland were due to be reassessed 1 year earlier than the English rates.

The Scots are no more opressed than thier fellows in the North of England. In fact we are better off than many areas of England due to Increased government spending.

We got fucked in the 80s, but that was more due to the make up of the Scottish economy. We were based on the old industries which got shut down everywhere, try spotting the difference between a man from the clyde and one from tyneside without listening to the accent.

Oh we have more nuclear sites. Most of Scotland outside of the central belt is very sparesly populated, ideal for putting nuclear shit.

There are a few things that could be called imperial opression, if they weren't done to the north of England too. What you have in Scotland is the same as anywhere else in the U.K. the poor being fucked over by the rich. It just suits some factions within the elite to claim imperial opression.

I am actually not against Scottish independence if anything I'm slightly in favour, after all it was the voters in the south of England that imposed Thatcher on us, but if we did go it alone it would be a lot harder for the working class in Northern England to have anything to stay the hand of the likes of Thatcher.

[Goatse]

I wasnt ever arguing that nationalism is a meaningful 'solution', more it could be a better 'half-way house' to acheiving socialist objectives since the left have a lot more kudos within the confines of scotland and wales than they do within westminster.

I wasn't actually talking directly to you, and I agree you have a valid point.


As a Scot, I support inderpendence!

Why should London decide to dump there nukes in Scotland?

Why should they decide if men and woman born in Scotland should be sent to foreign lands to be killed?

Why should they take the money from the North Sea Oil and gas when its in our waters?

Why should London euro mp's decide how much fish Scottish fisherman can catch and when they can catch it?

Why does American miltary planes fly into our airports and use our prisons and places to torture people?

Also why are we a refueling station for the yanks to transport illegal missles to Israel to drop on civillians?

Answer controlled by London and we do not have democracy in this country.

Why should London do any of those things to anybody?

Your nationalism makes me sick

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Goatse

Why should London do any of those things to anybody?

Your nationalism makes me sick


Well redrogue is right, why is it that the nuclear weapons (a would be primary target in the event of a nuclear stand off) are dumped in Faslane and not the Yorkshire dales or the home counties?

Why? Because in the English beourgiouse mindset, English > Scottish.
Always has been, always will be. Also, in response to SNP critics, not that i'm in agreeance with their overall politics but in fairness to them they have made it clear in their manifesto they are anti-trident.
http://www.snp.org/campaigns/trident

[bolshevik butcher]

Their stand against nuclear weapons amounts to transpoting them a couple of hundered miles down the road. They aren't dumped in Yorkshire because its too populated, they need a reasnobly quiet place down the sea and Scotland has plenty of ideal places for that. I seriously doubt the British bourgoirsie has some sort of obsession with dumping all their awful things north of the border. What about dangerous things such as nuclear power stations? They have plenty of them down south.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 02, 2007 07:46 pm
Their stand against nuclear weapons amounts to transpoting them a couple of hundered miles down the road. They aren't dumped in Yorkshire because its too populated, they need a reasnobly quiet place down the sea and Scotland has plenty of ideal places for that. I seriously doubt the British bourgoirsie has some sort of obsession with dumping all their awful things north of the border. What about dangerous things such as nuclear power stations? They have plenty of them down south.
Faslane is extremely close to Glasgow, so in the event of a nuclear blast a large amount of it would either be hit or showered in fall-out. Anyway, that logic doesnt apply because there are any number of places in England which would be equally suitable anyway. Nuclear stations arent dangerous in themselves (in the same sense at least) because theyre not military targets. A hostile state who wanted to castrate the UK's launch capability would hit faslane first.

[Goatse]

Why? Because in the English beourgiouse mindset, English > Scottish.

Evidence?

Apart from the whole nuclear thing which BB refuted...

[Andy Bowden]

Theres also the issue of democracy relating to Faslane - you often get the majority of people opposing nuclear weapons, nuclear power, various injustices etc - and it gets foisted on them; in Scotland nuclear weapons are maintained despite the opposition of the Scottish Parliament itself, and a majority of Scots MPs.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:03 pm


Why? Because in the English beourgiouse mindset, English > Scottish.

Evidence?

Apart from the whole nuclear thing which BB refuted...
take it you havent watched Braveheart or Rob Roy. :lol:

Joking aside thought, the English ruling class have regarded every other race they came across as inferior, which was their rationale for the colonial era. However they have always had special contempt for the Scots, Irish and Welsh because their proximity made them 'a threat at their door'.

[Cencus]

Almost everything shitty, since the 15th Century, that has been done to Scots, has been done by Scots. There were allegedly more Scots fighting against Bonny Prince Charlie than for him, it was Scots units that went on a killing spree through the highlands after the rebellion. It was Scots clan chiefs that threw thier own people, many distant blood relatives, off the land in the highland clearances because they could make more money turning thier clan lands over to hunting or raising sheep. Mary, Queen of Scots was stitched up by the Scottish Lords, then killed by her cousin.

Scotland kept it's aristocracy unlike Wales and Ireland. Scotland kept it's own legal and education system, has a seperate but similar local government system. Scotland joined the Union willingly unlike Wales & Ireland.

The oprression faced by the Scots was done by thier own people not anyone elses. We even became the boot boys of the Empire, look at the surnames of the protestants in Ireland a hell of a lot are Scots.

[Dr Mindbender]

well we have the religious institutions and a lack of education for the proletarian class to thank for most of that. Yes there was lots of backscratching by the English beourgiouse but that doesnt mean the union should be regarded as some sort of vessel of proletarian unity, because i dont believe it does- Even one scottish comrade admitted that since devolution the lives of ordinary scots, have in some measure been improving since the end of direct westminster rule. Lets keep it within the class context though, and history aside -if giving the left a more prominent voice within a parliamentary entity can bring about socialism to even one part of britain then it gets my support.

[spartan]

US:
Joking aside thought, the English ruling class have regarded every other race they came across as inferior, which was their rationale for the colonial era.
This was pretty much standard practice for all European colonial empires. It was not exclusive to the English only you know!

However they have always had special contempt for the Scots, Irish and Welsh because their proximity made them 'a threat at their door'.
If the English have such a special contempt for the Irish, Scots and Welsh then how come we currently have a Scottish Prime Minister? As well as the various other non English leaders of this country about half of whom have all been of non English backgrounds. Some of this countries greatest war heroes have been of non English backgrounds and the Welsh contingent of the UK armed forces is routinley regarded as the best in the whole of the UK! So this English contempt for other non English people of the British Isles appears to have been something only popular a long time ago.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by spartan+--> (spartan)If the English have such a special contempt for the Irish, Scots and Welsh then how come we currently have a Scottish Prime Minister?[/b]
This would have been unthinkable during the tory days. Besides Gordon Brown is a 'self hating scot'. He loathes the SNP mandate as he believes the scottish people are incapable of running their own affairs. This plays well to the English masturbatory self superiority complex. No way would he have got the job if he was a scottish patriot. It was for this reason that Sean Connery was refused a knighthood!

spartan

Some of this countries greatest war heroes have been of non English backgrounds and the Welsh contingent of the UK armed forces is routinley regarded as the best in the whole of the UK!
No doubt, but as Cencus pointed out, allowing scotsmen and welshmen to climb the ranks was one way the english beourgiouse liked to divide and conquer in order to silence the angry celt. These officers were then used to terrorise their victims in places like India and Ireland! Effective, dont you agree?

[Cencus]

It was for this reason that Sean Connery was refused a knighthood!

The fact that he said publicly that it was alright to give a women a good slap now n then didn't help.


No doubt, but as Cencus pointed out, allowing scotsmen and welshmen to climb the ranks was one way the english beourgiouse liked to divide and conquer in order to silence the angry celt.

You misunderstand me, Scotland was a willing partner. Those who opposed the Union were Catholic Highlanders. Scots have been treated no worse than English folks outside the home counties.


This would have been unthinkable during the tory days. Besides Gordon Brown is a 'self hating scot'. He loathes the SNP mandate as he believes the scottish people are incapable of running their own affairs.

He loathes the SNP because if they had thier way they will make it harder for Labour to win Westminster elections.


Even one scottish comrade admitted that since devolution the lives of ordinary scots, have in some measure been improving since the end of direct westminster rule.

These improvements are funded by extra money given to Scotland under the devolution deal.


Scotland has never been picked out for oppression the way the Welsh or Irish have since 1300s. We got fucked over by Thatcher, but then so did just about everywhere bar the home counties. There really isn't any imperial oppression going on, and to a degree nationalism acts a distraction from the reality that it's not English fucking over Scots, but rich fucking over the poor.

[spartan]

Cencus:
There really isn't any imperial oppression going on, and to a degree nationalism acts a distraction from the reality that it's not English fucking over Scots, but rich fucking over the poor.
Exactly! This whole Nationalism and independence movement has successfully distracted the people to their real problems which is of course Capitalist oppression. When Thatcher fucked Scotland over economically in the 80's it was not because she hated Scotland but it was because she was a Capitalist who forcefully changed our economy. Dont any of you think it odd that this Nationalist independence movement is being funded by rich buisness people? Perhaps these rich buisness people have something to gain from independence such as the Scottish people thinking that all their problems are because of Westminster and the English which is the biggest load of crap i have ever heard!

The Scottish Proletariat are being fooled by the Bourgeoisie into believing that all of their problems are from the union! When in actual fact it is because of the Bourgeoisie who are right now fooling them into believing otherwise and 20% of Scots now foolishly want independence as they think it will solve all their problems :lol: The only way to solve the Proletariats problems is to destroy the Bourgeoisie and their Capitalism not gain a meaningless independence which do anything to ease the shit conditions the Scottish Proletariat are in.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by cencus+--> (cencus)The fact that he said publicly that it was alright to give a women a good slap now n then didn't help.[/b]
I dare say that raised a chuckle among the English beourgious more than it damaged his respect in their eyes.


Originally posted by cencus+--> (cencus)Scots have been treated no worse than English folks outside the home counties.
[/b]
Scotland was the first place to undergo the council tax, and according to my family who live there they pay much more than those south of the border. The reason their lives are partly improving, frankly is because of devolution.

Originally posted by cencus

He loathes the SNP because if they had thier way they will make it harder for Labour to win Westminster elections.
I dont think it'll make a huge difference. The liberals are making big gains up there and the New Labour programme's popularity is encroaching into the home counties.

[email protected]

These improvements are funded by extra money given to Scotland under the devolution deal.
That may be the case, but how much do you think membership of the union is costing Scotland? Within it they have to pay taxes to London, which are squandered on illegal 'wars on terror' and harebrained projects like the millenium dome and the London Olympics, all of which southern based, none of which will benefit scots one iota.

cencus

There really isn't any imperial oppression going on, and to a degree nationalism acts a distraction from the reality that it's not English fucking over Scots, but rich fucking over the poor.
As I said before if it serves to make a prominent left voice, maybe it can serve at least some progressive meaning.

[Cencus]

Scotland was the first place to undergo the council tax, and according to my family who live there they pay much more than those south of the border.

We got the Community Charge A.K.A. the Poll Tax a year before England and Wales, but wasn't actually done out of fucking over the Scots[eek I'm defending The Thatcher Beast now :)]but because the Scottish rates [the local tax system replaced by the Poll Tax] were up for reassessment[sp?] a year earlier than those of England and Wales, just another one of the half truths you'll find in politics anywhere. Still haven't paid a penny of mine :)

Being an SNP supporter p[rolly didn't help Connery getting his gong, but being a mysogonist tax exile is more likely the cause.


I dont think it'll make a huge difference. The liberals are making big gains up there and the New Labour programme's popularity is encroaching into the home counties.

Labour has a guarenteed 50+ Westminster seats in Scotland out of 73, and the Tories haven't had more than 10 since the 92 general election. That's a big enough difference to scare labour. Loosing 50+ seats in Westminster is the difference between a working majority and a hung parliament. The last thing labour want to loose the Scottish Westminster seats.


(As an aside to this Scotland is actually overrepresentewd in Westminster if we had the same number of people per costituancy as England Scotland would actually have about 55 seats.)


That may be the case, but how much do you think membership of the union is costing Scotland? Within it they have to pay taxes to London, which are squandered on illegal 'wars on terror' and harebrained projects like the millenium dome and the London Olympics, all of which southern based, none of which will benefit scots one iota.

There are so many figures floated about regarding how Scotland would do under independance I'm liable to distrust the lot. No doubt oil was used in the 80s to fund tax cuts, but that was then, it's running out now.

[bolshevik butcher]

Most figures actually show Scotland revieves far more money per person in terms of government spending than England, and this has given rise to tories branding Scotland as the land of "subsidy junkies". Some parts of Scotland reieve more some recieve less, Scotland is as a country more deprived than England and also has a higher per centage rural population so its not surprising.

[Cencus]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 03, 2007 09:37 pm
Most figures actually show Scotland revieves far more money per person in terms of government spending than England, and this has given rise to tories branding Scotland as the land of "subsidy junkies". Some parts of Scotland reieve more some recieve less, Scotland is as a country more deprived than England and also has a higher per centage rural population so its not surprising.
Most figures that I've seen show Scotland outperforming most English regions bar the South East. That's one that rarely gets mentioned. Anyone can make the figures say what they want.

Scotland gets more funding under a deal that was done in order to placate the nationalist tendancy in Scotland. It's not that we are subsidy junkies rather we're bribed to try n keep us in the union. Yet another half truth that's banded about by London centric parties.

"The nationalists are getting powerfull in Scotland"
"Let's throw some cash at them and give them a toy town parliament to shut them up"
"But we better keep em thinking they have to stay in the union"
"I know the extra money we give em to keep em shut up we use it as an excuse to call em subsidy junkies"

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 02, 2007 11:32 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 02, 2007 11:32 pm)
spartan
If the English have such a special contempt for the Irish, Scots and Welsh then how come we currently have a Scottish Prime Minister?
This would have been unthinkable during the tory days. [/b]
I suppose then that Arthur James Balfour doesn't count then. Also Andrew Bonar Law was more of a Scot than an English man.


...English beourgious...

Talk of the English bourgeoisie is nearly as ludicrous as this spelling of it*. It is a British bourgeoisie.

Devrim

*I would suggest installing a spell check on your browser. It is one of the words I always have problems with too.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personally I think it makes little difference if one is being ruled over from Cardiff/Belfast/Edinburgh or London. You're still being lorded over by a ruling class.

[Cencus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:50 am
Personally I think it makes little difference if one is being ruled over from Cardiff/Belfast/Edinburgh or London. You're still being lorded over by a ruling class.
Exactly. :)

I just get pissed off with the "poor oppressed Scots get fucked over by the English" line. The biggest opressors of Scots were and still are Scots.

The funniest thing is when every few years we have the clan gatherings and folks arrive from all over the world to pay homage to the old clan chiefs. The chiefs great grandfather chucked thier great grandfathers off the land because they could make more dosh turning it over to sheep farming or hunting.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:04 am
I suppose then that Arthur James Balfour doesn't count then. Also Andrew Bonar Law was more of a Scot than an English man.
Indeed. The Tories had very strong Scottish links until recently when the ending of the mixed economy hit Scotland particularly hard, and the petit-bourgeois parliamentarian vote went towards the SNP, Labour and Liberal parties. It was only back in the 1950s that the Tories were the majority party in Scotland.

There have been clumsy attempts to construct an English-Scots dichotomy of Oppressor-Oppressed under the false analogy of colonialism, which hides the real dynamics of patriarchy and bourgeois-proletarian class struggle.

[Andy Bowden]

Of course if Scotland became independent on a capitalist basis it would still be exploited. An Ireland that was independent and united, but still capitalist, would still be exploited. Likewise an independent capitalist Basque country, Catalonia etc.

The question is, would independence in these countries advance the strength of the working class?

Had Scotland had its own parliament, even with limited control, in the 80s it would have been harder for Thatcher to implement her 'reforms'. It would have almost certainly been dominated by Labour - and as bad as Labour were in the 80s, they would never have instituted the poll tax.

Had they tried to implement Thatcherite policies they would have alienated their vote, and shown their true colours - neccessary tp breaking workers allegiance to social democracy.

All countries in the west are capitalist, but there are massively differing degrees in the strategic power and position of the working class. In France for example, because the anti-TU laws Thatcher introduced in Britain could not be introduced there, the labour and student movement managed to defeat the CPE.

The same would not be true of the UK today. My point here is that democratic rights for Scotland in the 80s, even of a limited nature could have either limited these attacks, or exposed Labour politicians who tried to back them.

Out of interest, do comrades here think that the Scottish Parliament, on a devolved basis was worth fighting for?

PS: On the issue of Scots killing other Scots, or Scotland voluntarily joining the union - you have to define what you mean by Scotland here. Unionist historians, and pro-Union politicians at the time pretty much accept the majority of the populace of Scotland did not want the Union. So 'Scotland' voluntarily joined the Union about as much as Iraq has US soldiers at its own request.

And on the issue of Scots carrying out repression in the serivce of the Union, again, the Iraqi Parliament might be the ones requesting US troops, but we all know where the real power actually lies.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 04, 2007 01:24 pm
Out of interest, do comrades here think that the Scottish Parliament, on a devolved basis was worth fighting for?

PS: On the issue of Scots killing other Scots, or Scotland voluntarily joining the union - you have to define what you mean by Scotland here. Unionist historians, and pro-Union politicians at the time pretty much accept the majority of the populace of Scotland did not want the Union. So 'Scotland' voluntarily joined the Union about as much as Iraq has US soldiers at its own request.
Both Lenin and Marx agreed that limited progressive reforms under Parliamentarianism were worth fighting for. A federal liberal parliamentary system is most progressive form of bourgeois governance.

On the issue of Scotland joining the union. The two kingdoms did not come together democratically. What the rural communities of England and Scotland thought of union was of no significance to the gentry and English and Scottish bourgeoisie, for whose benefit union was to be. Nation states in that epoch were the result of manoeuvring between the aristocracy, gentry and the emerging bourgeoisie. The unrepresented majority did not have a say.

I don't quite see the semblance to the situation of the US-backed Iraqi state though.

[Goatse]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+October 02, 2007 10:12 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ October 02, 2007 10:12 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 09:03 pm


Why? Because in the English beourgiouse mindset, English > Scottish.

Evidence?

Apart from the whole nuclear thing which BB refuted...
take it you havent watched Braveheart or Rob Roy. :lol:

Joking aside thought, the English ruling class have regarded every other race they came across as inferior, which was their rationale for the colonial era. However they have always had special contempt for the Scots, Irish and Welsh because their proximity made them 'a threat at their door'. [/b]
I asked for evidence, not sweeping generalisations

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Andy Bowden
The question is, would independence in these countries advance the strength of the working class?

No.

It is impossible to look at a past that didn't happen, but there is no reason at all that 'independence' for these countries would have helped the working class.

Devrim

[Dr Mindbender]

I honestly cant see a progressive change in the status quo anywhere on the british mainland as long as the union continues. The English right wing is far too entrenched in the parliamentary system, and the legacy of thatcherism for all intensive purposes destroyed the british broad left. We are like nothing compared to say, our Italian or Spanish comrades.

[Invader Zim]

It seems then the rationale for english and scottish/welsh amalgamation then was done purely in the interests of the beourgiouse on both sides of the border.

That is about the score. However, the Early Modern Welsh lower orders tended to be highly loyalist, so they didn't oppose; rather it is likely they would have welcomed the union in 1535. This remained the case once Wales became the methodist strong-hold, largely because methodism encouraged a certain political and social conservatism that was highly popular in Wales. Welsh nationalism is a 19th-20th century invention that most Welsh people, with the exception of Welsh speakers - who represent a small minority (around 20%) - are largely apathetic towards; except when it comes to Rugby.