http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6185652.stm

According to opinion polls, voters in Britain narrowly favour Scottish independence from the United Kingdom - although all three major UK-wide political parties are against the idea. Furthermore, the separatist Scottish National Party is currently 5 points ahead in opinion polls for next year's Scottish Parliament elections, making them the favourites to lead the next coalition government and giving rise to the real possibiltity of an independence referendum.

The Liberal Democrats are pro-union, but we are looking like the SNP's natural coalition partners so we may have to consider backing a referendum only to campaign for a "No" vote when it actually comes. My guess is that's there's a 60% chance of a "No" vote - but if it does happen, there's a possibility of a domino effect where places like Quebec might start to get the same idea.

What do people think and  how do you think your government would react to the breakup of my country?

Chris Nelson

(An Englishman!)

Dear People of So Overun Nayshun of United Kinkdom for Grate Bitten and Not In Ireland...

I thought Scotland was an Independent country... bcos they have...

1. a name - always important for being a country

2. a currency - the scottish pound (punt)

3. 6000 different types of Tartan

4. a rugby team and football team thats better than its cricket team

5. a cricket team that could whip Canadia any day

6. Sean Connery and the Loch Ness Monster

7. Single Malt Whisky in general. oh and...

8. 10 million Scotchmen and their bonny lasses who dont give a stuff about Inkland or Wails or nuffink, cos ther are

9. 40 million Inklishmen who arent bovvered enuff to care bout nuffink either

10. The Glaswegian Rangers

 *** seriously tho - if Scotland becomes really independent wont Ireland and Wales and all the little islands (like Australia) wont they demand... that while you may take their lives you will never take their freedom...

Having a national identity is not the same as nationhood. The UK is actually a fairly decentralised sytem, politicallty and socially, with political institutions for the regions strong (ish) local government, a healthy and friendly respect and emnity for each of the parts (english/scotish, north/south, yorkshire/lancashire, Manchester/liverpool theres far more than I need mention.) yes the 'nations' have thier own sports teams, but it just adds to fun of watching football rugby or whatever... (instead of say france versus germany, we get 4 matchs at any one time.) and means we're more likly to win an international competition, I will be rooting on Wales when they trounce the aussies at next years rugby world cup, and i'll be waving a welsh flag, because I'm part of something larger than some fuedal nation system. I'm British.

On scottish devolution (and theres only 5 million scots, not 10 (the break down off hand is 5 scots, 3 welsh about 2 NI and 50 english (millions (totoal 60) I'd accept it if there was popular supprt for it, but I'd be disapponted, mainly because it would prove we havent moved on much in popular thought, since robert the bruce, some, oh 600 years ago? We're better together as a single island('s) and we're mutually dependant on each other. Besides it's not like scots are a trampled over repressed ethnic minority (if there is such a thing in the UK, we are the origional mongrol nation) after all, blair brown and reid, arguably the 3 most powerful men in the government, are all scots! besides the nationalists would not win a referendum on devolution anyway. 

First, I know these matters on national identity are usually very sensitive. It is not up to me or others to say whether the residents of Scotland are foremost Scottish or citizens of the UK, or if they should become independent. The same goes for the situation in Canada. Nevertheless, living in a federal country where the political parties are totally divided by language, I find it interesting to note the development in Scotland, Quebec, Catalonia, Flanders,... Although I am glad that ordinary nationalism has become a thing of the past in most regions of the world, it seems that some smaller 'nations' are very actively trying to progress towards more autonomy.

Personally, I am a great fan of federalism if the principle of subsidiarity is being followed. Things that can better be done locally should be done by that level. Only if a higher level of government can do things more efficiently or effectively, the power should be transferred to that level. This also includes the need for solidarity. Although there should be fiscal responsibility by each level of government, it is often necessary to find ways to ensure a level playing field for the different parts (e.g. the regional development funds in the European Union). Governments should also respect the cultural diversity by allowing education, services, cultural initiatives, etc. in the language of each region.

Separatism should only be considered if there is a proven and continuing refusal by higher levels to accept diversity or if there is a clear democratic base in favor of it. In our case, we find that Belgium serves little purpose to the further development of Flanders (even the national soccer team sucks at its performance and the monarchy is becoming more a burden than an asset). Even international organizations like the OECD are telling us that Belgium now has two economies rather than one. It will therefore be important that in the near future, a new balance can be found between Belgium and the regions. This will ensure that policy can be tailored according to the wishes of the different parts of the country.

Thomas.

Dear Sir

Perhaps my sarcasm was not clear enough - so let me clarify it for you - irrespective of the fact that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...

If each component of the Commonwealth has its own national identity - why then does the united kingdom exist as it does - instead of including all of the commonwealth countries?

Forgive me for not knowing how many people live in the UK - tell me, do these numbers include all the commonwealth citizens living in the UK? while its true that it may include the British citizens - it is a fact that being British is a second class type of citizenship as opposed to being English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish first.

In respect of the statement that there would never be a referendum succesfully advocating independence, perhaps you will recall that virtually every single colony has gone independent and those that are still connected to the Queen are in fact relatively self governing. Also that the Austalians are increasingly looking at Republicanism as the panacea for their lack of cultural indentity.

However my biggest concern with your position is this:

Because Self Determination is a Sine Qua Non for Liberal Democracy, and Because Scotland fields its own rugby squad - why then does her majesty not have a Prime Minister (and Cabinet) for Scotland and similarly a Prime Minister for Wales and for Northern Ireland. cos then like you said - youd get four chances to win the world cup - and in this case 4 seats at the UN...

*** Please correct the following if its historically inaccurate...

while we're addressing this issue of regional or provincial autonomy - why is it that the Welsh people - whose very name (Welsh) is an insult to their ancestry - who were driven Westwards to Present Day Wales and to France in Present Day Brittany - why is it that these people these WE-LSH people (Foreigners) named as such by the invaders - why is it that nobody is addressing their land claim over the entire extant of the country called England? given that their ancestors the Britons were, in addition to the Gaels and the Picts, the original inhabitants of the island?

1, I knew it was sarcastic, I just was'nt

2. Because the colonies and commonwealth never had equalaity of rights, as territtories, as the british isles, the empire was run as an empire, the country as a country, there was always a marked difference between the equality of participation between citizns of 'scotland' and 'england' in the UK  and the UK and Canada, UK and Australia, the UK and India, or anywhere else. The scots have, since 1707 and the act of union, always had equal rights to all other citizns in the UK, the demand for self determination has never really been prevalant as a result.

 3. the figures were pulled from the 2005 census, and was an attempt (as all census are) to get an accurate reflection of who lives in the UK, so probably, though not 100% sure (I would assume so though) Of course on a national basis there are some who are british first, and some who are english/scot/welsh/irish first, but how is that any different from the regions of russia? or of france? or germany? or indeed wherever you are at the moment, you really telling me all the french, from paris to toulouse are one homogeneus cultural bloc?
 
4. Her highness (god I hate that woman) does indeed have a first minister for scotland, wales, and pending succesful coalition talks, Northen Ireland, including thier own cabinet, the welsh and irish assemplies and scottish parliaments give the regions a devolved voice (though england still does not have one, which is a little silly, but blame the governemt) but Blair is the national prime minister, westminster is the national government, and thus the most important, besides we already have a permanant council membership in the UN, how much more power do you want to give to us?
 

 P.S

Actually Wales  has never been a country. The people who lived in Britian before the Roamans, who i presume you're on about were actually a motly collection of over 20 tribes, many of whom had land in (then) gaul, there was never a single nation with land rights over all of Britian before the British Empire, and no kingdom in modern day wales ever had control of 'wales' the lowest there ever where before the english invasion was 7. You wanna play that game then give Italy back half of europe.

excellent...

so you understand that there have always been double standards applied to members of society as governed by "britain", good.

"Since 1707 and the Act of the Union"... Scots have had equal rights... ok - but tell me why in 1707 and whenever this act of union was signed - why did scotland give up their independence in the first place? it wasnt like there was this common market thant eveolved a common currency that led to the unification of the countries, was there? or was it rather the case that scotland was colonised (permanently) by the English in 1707; and that in order to subdue the Nationalist tendancies of Aspirational Scottish Nobility (ie. the lords who would have been kings) the scots were given "equal rights".

ahhh... the difference is this - the word "foreigner" means "someone who is not English" - so even if ur British it doesnt put u in line to the throne - while logically any englishman with a private army could be king. and u cant compare a region of a country with a country within a union.

please dont disparage the monarchy - youre living in her country - if u want, challenge the Windsors to battle for control of the crown - otherwise be polite - she does have a few thousand Scottish Greys/Argylls/Black Watch Guards at her disposal.

What is a First Minister? is it like a school prefect - all detention and punishment - and no power - or do they wield toy telephones like the Bantustans we had in South Africa? I said PRIME MINISTERs - and in any event are the Prime Ministers of Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland and the members of their cabinets... are they members of the National Government's Cabinet "Privy Council"?

hey if u can have 4 useless cricket teams why cant you have 4 seats at the UN, i doubt you'd get 4 security council seats, but 4 seats is 4 seats as opposed to 1

http://www.great-britain.co.uk/history/hilltribe.htm

while im sure that the above may serve as your guide in this matter... i choose to restate my case - that whether it was 20 tribes or 7 tribes - whether there were kingdoms, feudal lords or just peasant clans - whether there were organised polity and society - DOES NOT MATTER - because prior to the "Roman/English/Norman" invasions there were NO WELSH people.

They were named Welsh by the Invaders in order to seperate them from the rest of the people (apparently the word "Weah Lasch" means FOREIGNER in the invading language) and while these folks may have originally settled Britain from France - the fact is that they (all twenty tribes) were the first people to do so.

whether they had "property rights" or not is irrelevant as well - if people lived on land and were violently removed from it, they have the right to land restitution - SIMPLE.

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

*** the trouble with being colonised is that you tend to lose the essence of your own identity - thankfully the process of colonisation is self-limiting, such that when a person becomes so immersed in the dominant culture they start to see themselves as part of that culture - this is why Gandhi started his campaign on the basis of his being a "son of the empire" and his right to effect change to and improvements upon the empire... whereas the folks in London thought he was a "half naked fakir" and a "coolie lawyer" with too much time on his hands...

Good Greif

1. When did I try to make out that the Empire was a perfect democracy exactly? Stop building straw men... I'm a liberal, not a bloody imperialist. 

 2. Braveheart is not a historical source, so the Gibson approach is not one that'll win you any arguments, and on this point, who was the first King of England and Scotland? and which was he? Thats right, James I of england, James the VI of scotland, a scot, he succeded Elizabeth the I, a whole century before the act of union . The act of union itself ended a centuries long blood fued, it stopped wars for gods sake, it was the 18th centurys answer to the EU (EEC's primary aim was'nt trade, it was the prevention of war in europe through trade.)

 3. Using 10th century discourse in a 21st century debate is akin to marrying a potato, have some pride.  

4. I'll say whatever I like about the monarchy, its a free country and they say whatever they like about us commoners.

5. As I pointed out, the UK is a country, scotland england and wales are not, they have institutions one level below the national parliament, as any region will, Scotland was never a dominion.  Also the Scottish parliament has wide ranging powers, including some ability to levy taxes (variable by 2% of the UK rate) so no, the first minister of scotland is a seriously important role, second, in theory at least, only to the national prime minister and the queen. and no, they are not part of the national government, they are elected to a regional government and therefore cannot be in the cabinet.

6. Oi! we won the ashes... cheeky git!

7. If you really must quote wikipedia at least quote it right... the first people to settle wales were neolithic, and in any case, are all dead and have been so through countless generations. I'd love to give the USA back to the lakota, but somehow I don't see it happening. Furthurmore, there is no distinct genetic difference in the british Isles, the descents of various gaulish tribes, are well, still living all over the UK, indeed thery account for more than 90% of the population. So give the peoples land, back to the people? eh?

8. Scotland is not, and never has been a colony of England, stick to the facts, what Gandhi has to do about scotish self determination in 2006 is something that is beyond me, you could argue that 'england' dominates 'scotland' (and it does on demography alone) but the scotish and english have far more in common culturally than brits and indians ever will. Also the concept of Salmond in a toga scares me...

Please dont take this personally... 

On behalf of all of my straw men - wherever they may be - fallacy oh fallacy the rising calamity...

You said that Scottish people had no need for independence cos they had "equal rights" - I think that’s a rather naive way of reading the rules and taking them literally - the facts of the empire's colonial track record speak for themselves...

I don’t believe that popular culture or art (or the web) is historical source at all - I just think that the average 3rd world person who speaks the queen’s English as his/her 7th language - may identify more easily, with the imagery and the paraphrasing - make it more tangible for them. Forgive me; I work with semi-literate people who learnt to read from the labels of washing powder boxes.

There was an Englishman, a King Edward dude who controlled (ie. Raised taxes from) Scotland, England and Wales - he promised the Welsh a king who spoke no word of English or something and then made his newborn son the (very first) prince of Wales - I think Robert the Bruce came after this dude Edward, so he would have been an earlier king of both countries, earlier than this James dude who was Scotch

Dude if this act of union was so successful why do some scotch people now want out of it?

marrying a potato - is it not bad enough that you've dissed the Scotch, but do you have to pick on the Irish as well... and for your information ALL my arguments come from a book that was written 2145 years ago - not so much tenth century, but rather sorta midway through my 5100 year old cultural experience... pride? Dude don’t even go there... ;)

Re: monarchy vs. commoners... doesn’t the glorious system of hereditary peerage mean that anybody who shags a prince could become queen - take Chelsea Davies for example. If Harry&Chelsea get married wont that mean that the queen will have a very very very very very common granddaughter-in-law?

And again I must say – if the UK and the regional system of government is ok then – why has nobody challenged the Windsors for control of the throne recently?

No I understand that the UK is a country, that much is clear – as to why your head of state (da queen) is also the head of the commonwealth and of a few other places (I think u call them regions) – I have no clue though.. I mean sure the Welsh have to respect the Duke of Cornwall’s mum – but why must the Aussies? I wasn’t aware that there was a Duke of Sydney NSW…

I agree fully that Scotland (according to you) is not a dominion – because I think that a dominion is like the Dominican Republic, Yes? No? But isn’t Prince Charles the Lord High Protector of Scotland? Doesn’t that make Scotland a PROTECTORATE – like South West Africa before it went independent and became Namibia?

You’re saying that there’s this Regional Government for Scotland, for N-Ireland, for Wales and for England? That’s 4 First Ministers (for the 4 REGIONS) and 4 Regional Cabinets? And on top of which there’s a national government and a national cabinet?

So just to clarify this for me, you’ve got 4 Regional Parliaments (aka Assemblies, Legislatures etc), 4 Regional Cabinets and 4 Regional First Ministers and then the House of Commons, the National Cabinet and the PM?

And in spite of this excessive Regionalism – there are still some people who want greater independence for Scotland, England, Wales, N.Ireland and Barkshire? They must seem a bit ungrateful to you, don’t they?

Re: Neolithic People – I did read it – but in a flash of synaptic logic – I figured that (as a result of their inability to appear in court today) their probability to lodge a successful land claim would be low. So I skipped to the next in line – da welsh… sorry for omitting that step.

Why would u want to give the USA to the Lakota people? The Lakota people are just 1 branch of the people who originally occupied the Americas. And in any event that dude representing the people who bought the Hard Rock Café group, said they were buying back Manhattan “1 Burger at a time” so they don’t need our help… after all they own casinos…

Please be advised that I don’t usually research or check any of my facts – I find that it slows down the rhetorical process of using fallacy ridden arguments to subdue people into accepting your version of the truth absolutely… ;)

If it’s true that the genetic relationship between the Scots, Engls, Welsh and Irish can be proven - and after a few hundred years there’s bound to be a few Paddy-Taffy blokes around – and if it’s a case of the land belongs to one homogenous mass of people – then why oh why do u have a few Gibsonites screeching for greater independence?

My apologies for saying that Scotland was an English colony – from your story about “Jimbo the AngloScotch King” – I can see that the truth is that SCOTLAND CONQUERED ENGLAND IN 1707... As to why there was a need to pass the union act 100 years later probably points to the fact that after Jimbo there were not so many Scotch Kings? Or if there were they were unable to hold the English Nobles in line…

Gandhi was the first person who unraveled the empire using the rules of the empire, the fact that he was Indian is irrelevant. I do not contend that there is any cultural similarity between the Brits and Indians – and since I am neither I’m not going to presuppose to understand either culture.

And who is Salmond? I assume that he’s a nationalist or some sort…

And as regards the Ashes… who cares? It’s a closed game between two nations, sorry two regions under 1 queen where the one team (Australia) has consistently beaten the other (England) ever since Shane Warne bowled Mike Gatting around his legs. And Gatting was on fire that series (he scored 45 runs off 20 balls in one innings in a test match) so I suppose in order to keep the Barmy Army happy, England had to win something recently… the only question is… how much did it cost? ;p

avishkar:

If each component of the Commonwealth has its own national identity - why then does the united kingdom exist as it does - instead of including all of the commonwealth countries?

Because at the Imperial Conferences that produced the Statute of Westminster in 1932 the Prime Ministers of Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and white South Africa rejected the option of an "Imperial Federation" in which the British Empire would become a federal state and opted instead for the loose structure that evolved into the modern Commonwealth. In other words, it exists as it does because places like Australia and Canada decided they would rather be independent.

Forgive me for not knowing how many people live in the UK - tell me, do these numbers include all the commonwealth citizens living in the UK? while its true that it may include the British citizens - it is a fact that being British is a second class type of citizenship as opposed to being English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish first.

What I think you are probably referring to in your "second class citizenship" comment is the fact that, since 1973, not every British citizen has had the right to actually live in the UK. Those people are now known as British Overseas Citizens - and there's quite a few of them, usually people who are connected to a former British colony and who opted to keep their British citizenship when they became independent.

I agree that it is wrong that these people should be denied the right to live in Britain, but I don't see how it is relevant to the debate.

Because Self Determination is a Sine Qua Non for Liberal Democracy, and Because Scotland fields its own rugby squad - why then does her majesty not have a Prime Minister (and Cabinet) for Scotland and similarly a Prime Minister for Wales and for Northern Ireland. cos then like you said - youd get four chances to win the world cup - and in this case 4 seats at the UN...

Scotland already has a substantial degree of autonomy - more than Flanders has in Belgium. Not only do they have their own autonomous elected Parliament and Government but, on top of the British Prime Minister (Tony Blair), there are elected "First Minsters" for both Scotland (Jack McConnell) and for Wales (Rhodri Morgan). We would have one for Northern Ireland as well - but they're too busy squabbling at the moment to get around to electing one - but if they do manage to agree on a government the First Minister will probably be Ian Paisley.

The reason why the independence referendum may well fail is precisely because the Scottish have this degree of autonomy and so, strictly speaking, the Scottish people may well come to the conclusion that they don't really need independence to exercise their right self-determination.

Why is it that nobody is addressing their land claim over the entire extant of the country called England? given that their ancestors the Britons were, in addition to the Gaels and the Picts, the original inhabitants of the island?

Bluntly, because there's no point getting hot under the collar about something that happened 1500 years ago. It would be like Italy asking Germany to make amends for the fall of Rome.

Dear Chris

 Ur saying that for 75 years the colonies have been wanting to go it alone... u'd think the UK would have gotten the message by now...

my point was that bcos england is not a region like scotland and wales... that its actually the UK of England and the three outlands of Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland.

and according to this the "first" minister of england is also the prime minister of the uk, while the parliament of england is also the parliament of the UK. so that theres this special status for england over the other regions.

re: 1500 years ago... if we adopt this approach... we should forgive GWB for invading Iraq as well... cos it was sooooo long ago ;) in fact if someone does something wrong and gets away with it for 24 hours - we should forgive them and allow them to continue benefitting from this state of affairs... but wait that'll let all the colonial empires (G8 countries) off the hook... mmmhhh...

i reckon the SNP/BLP coalition is a winner... have fun!

Ur saying that for 75 years the colonies have been wanting to go it alone... u'd think the UK would have gotten the message by now...

It did a long time ago - the point is that Scotland has not yet asked for independence so cannot be given it. See the Foreign Office website:

"First, our partnership must be founded on self-determination. Our Overseas Territories are British for as long as they wish to remain British. Britain has willingly granted independence where it has been requested; and we will continue to do so where this is an option." - http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1018028164839

and according to this the "first" minister of england is also the prime minister of the uk, while the parliament of england is also the parliament of the UK. so that theres this special status for england over the other regions.

who would have thunk?

King George the Fifth, who was suceeded by his son King Edward the Eigth, who was suceeded by his brother King George the Sixth, who was suceeded by his daughter Queen Elizabeth the Second (present day monarch); this dude, King George the Fifth was in fact the First of the of House of Windsor, which itself is the Sixth Scottish House to ascend to the throne of the UK...

So if the UK has had a Scottish monarch since forever, as was said earlier... James the First of Scotland aka James the Sixth of England, why do the locals want more freedom, they own the whole country dont they?

And if Blair, Brown & Reid are also Scots, then surely with a Scottish Monarch for the UK and a Scottish Executive Government for the UK; then this Scottish Parliament, Scottish First Minister and Scottish Cabinet must simply be overkill?

And now they want independence? from who? themselves? Scotland controls the UK, why would any Scot want to divest Scotland from its dominion over England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Unless this is about holding the world to ransom over Single Malt Whisky... yes i see it now, if Scotland goes independent, they will be able to massive export duties on whisky, such that it will be cheaper to fly to scotland and visit a distillery (as an alco-tourist) rather than to go down the road to your local pub and get sloshed on Islay's Liquid Gold.

And since the rest of the world only really produces average quality (im being very generous here) blended (ie. not single malt) whisky, there'll be no stopping them... and whats Ireland going to do? run a similiar camapign that says.. dont go alco-touring Scotlands 250 distilleries, come to Ireland and see our 3, and its whiskEy with an "E"! somehow i dont think the land that Guiness built could pull it off...

all power to the Scots for figuring out how to take control of the global economy... absolutely brilliant... gievn how many Board Chairmen, CEO's, MP's and Cabinet Ministers use whisky as a multi-purpose tool, bcos whisky is part sedative, part negotiation lubricator, part celebration agent... nice one scotchmen!

we as south africans would try a similar thing but our homemade liquor (witblitz, skokaan, mampoer etc) makes u go blind... so thers not so much of a market for it... and like Amarula (cream liqueur) is nice and everything - but somehow i dont see it replacing the Glenlivet any time soon.

if only our Tequila didnt taste like drain cleaner (i think it might actually be drain cleaner) we might have a chance at emulating the Scots... Billy Wallace and Bobby the Bruce forerunners of the Whisky Revolution... Shisile Amanzi Awethu! (give the fire-water to the people!)

disclaimer: this is a parody and is not to be taken seriously ;)