David Trimble has waded into Scotland’s constitutional discussion this weekend with an impassioned plea for Scots to reject the SNP’s “separatism” and “driving Scotland out” by remaining a part of the UK. It is possibly the boldest, most daring language we have had from the unionist side of the debate since the starting gun was unofficially fired on the campaign at the start of the year.
In seemingly barely disguised language, the winner of the Peace Prize for his work in the Northern Ireland peace process said:
“I have to say to the Scottish nationalists, by moving through a programme of separatism, by saying we want to drive Scotland out, you are doing violence to the identity of every Scot because there is a British component in the identity of every Scotsman.”
‘Doing violence’ is an interesting, and I would certainly argue misplaced, way of putting the pro-independence, civic nationalism that is at the forefront of Scottish politics. For too many, the referendum is being positioned as a question of whether you are Scottish or whether you are British, as if the two are mutually exclusive and as if either position will change after 2014. Are Swedes not both Swedish and Scandinavian? Indeed, David Cameron himself insisted that “Scotland is better off in Britain”. It is such an amateurish mistake to stupidly suggest that Scotland WON’T be inside Britain even after independence. Noone is suggesting that our nation’s geography is up for grabs here.
I am no expert on Northern Irish politics but I do wonder what the motivation for David Trimble’s strong remarks above are. There is no question that Scotland going its own way could reopen old Irish wounds, or even make it “an explosive issue once again”, so much so that I wonder if the deepest opposition to Scottish independence is actually across the Irish Sea.
After all, Crispin Black has it that Scotland is “a country (sic) revelling in the sort of menacing and rancid anti-English sentiment more suited to the H Blocks than a modern European democracy”. Em, really?
Lord Empey is similarly off-kilter, saying the following to peers during a debate over the Scotland Bill: “We (Northern Ireland) would end up like West Pakistan. We are all hewn from the same rock. Just imagine the situation we would be placed in.”
This is not simply the Union diminishing for those in Northern Ireland that happen to oppose it; it is arguably an intrinsic part of their identity that is, in their eyes, slipping away. As numerous Saltire-splattered murals in NI show, there is no doubt that a shared patriotism between Northern Ireland and Scotland within unionist quarters exists. That is not in question here. What is in question is why that shared celebration of two nations, and often one shared history, cannot continue to be celebrated if Scotland is independent?
One could argue that for certain communities in NI, Scotland is ‘the’ link to the Union, and if we left then they would really struggle to connect with the rest of the UK, bar the overt and at times worrying love for the monarchy and the armed forces. Is there the same love for Yorkshire and East Sussex? Not that I have seen.
As the quotes above suggest, to me at least, the mere consideration of Scotland leaving the UK results in a lashing out against it, and an assumption that it’s some sneaky, underhand figure doing this. Lord Empey, in the aforementioned debate, compares Alex Salmond to the leaders of Cuba and North Korea and suggests that, without Westminster approval, any referendum would simply be “the most expensive opinion poll in history”.
Of course, it is easy for me to gloss over peoples’ experiences during the Troubles, I wasn’t there for any of it and was only a child for most of it. It is not lightly though that I ask whether those experiences breed an irrational fear that an independent Scotland would begin the breakup of the rest of the UK (Welsh independence, Irish unity) and make the pain and suffering over the last 40 years for nothing.
For me, the SNP’s peaceful and peaceable slow march towards independence does not deserve to have comparisons drawn with the Irish approach to separation from the UK. That may or may not be what David Trimble was alluding to this weekend when he talked of the SNP’s “violence”, but a politician of David’s experience and standing should know to choose his words more carefully.
Northern Ireland’s hopefully historic problems are not Scotland’s problems and there is no need to commute our nation’s ambitions for fear of indirectly unsettling our neighbours.
#1 by Tom Griffin on March 24, 2012 - 11:48 am
Agree with much of what you say here but on this point:
“For me, the SNP’s peaceful and peaceable slow march towards independence does not deserve to have comparisons drawn with the Irish approach to separation from the UK”
It might equally be said that the UK’s peaceful response to the SNP does not compare to the British approach to Ireland’s campaign for independence.
#2 by Craig Gallagher on March 24, 2012 - 4:32 pm
That is a completely fair point, and one that deserves to be highlighted. For all the overheated rhetoric that clouds this debate, the point that Alex Salmond made on Burns Night that not a single person has died for the quest for Scottish Independence may be the most remarkable thing about it.
Both Scotland and Britain as a whole have conducted themselves with a dignity and restraint unimaginable in the historical Irish context.
#3 by Craig Kelly on March 24, 2012 - 12:37 pm
The problem here, Jeff, is that these are not ‘historic problems’. Both communities in Northern Ireland display remarkably similar behavior. Both identities are built around suspicion of the ‘other’, are out of kilter with the respective ‘home countries’ which they appeal to, and both are typified by a siege mentality.
There is an element of truth when Trimble talks about independence as an attack upon identity. If we re-align Ulster’s borders to take in parts of the west coast of Scotland – which culturally, historically, and in the minds of many loyalists is accurate – then we can understand (but not accept) what he may really mean by separatism.
But this is about something shallower and more selfish than identity. Of course, you are right, Scotland will remain part of Britain post-independence in the same way Sweden is Scandinavian. This is the core of the pro-independence movement: a re-alignment of the partnership, not – as Trimble wrongly suggests – separatism. But Trimble and his Loyalist friends aren’t really concerned about this. They are worried about the message of Scottish independence. Because independence will say that the direction of travel for nations in the British Isles is self-determination. And rightly or wrongly, Irish re-unification has always been couched in the rhetoric of ‘independence, ‘freedom’, and ‘self-determination’.
I have deep sympathy with both communities in NI. On the one hand, there is currently a community whose identity has no linkage to the country they are part of. And if re-unification were to become a reality, the roles would be reversed. But this is not about Northern Ireland, this is about the will of the Scottish people. Should we really be listening to our cantankerous and troublesome cousins across the seas any more than we would listen to the diaspora in, say, Nova Scotia?
#4 by Indy on March 24, 2012 - 12:37 pm
Maybe a more interesting question is why the Tories invited him to speak in the first place. Crass error or intentional?
#5 by Iain Menzies on March 24, 2012 - 5:23 pm
Is it that interesting? After all he is a tory.
#6 by Ken on March 24, 2012 - 9:20 pm
Because as the UUP is a part of the ” Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force (UCUNF)” which is the alliance between the Ulster Unionist Party and the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland since 2009, he’s entitled to speak.
Not the best person to, but he’s still a member.
#7 by Richard on March 25, 2012 - 9:05 am
It might have been more apt if they’d chosen the word “Team”, instead of “Force”!
#8 by Indy on March 25, 2012 - 9:34 am
That doesn’t really mean they had to invite him to speak, far less use the kind of language he did. Apart from anything else it makes a pan-unionist approach less likely as many Scottish politicians might be in favour of maintaining some form of political Union but absolutely do not want to be associated with Ulster Unionism. It’s just a very strange decision in my eyes.
#9 by Tom Cresswell on March 25, 2012 - 12:08 pm
UCUNF wasn’t renewed and revamped during the 2011 Assembly election, and from what I hear is largely considered dead as a campaigning tactic, and its likely that once this Leadership debate is over, there’ll be a debate about its overall future.
As for Trimble, the reason he was speaking there is because he is a member of the Conservatives – when he was made a lord he left the UUP and officially joined the Torries.
#10 by Dan on March 24, 2012 - 4:02 pm
Indy’s asked a good question there. Trimble may sit in the Lords as a Tory, but the Conservatives are now organising in NI independently of the UUP, will he ditch his old party more formally? Culturally there’s a huge connection between unionist NI and West Scotland via the Orange Order – I once watched the July 12th parades in Belfast and was struck by the number of Scottish lodges that came over. Although Trimble is very experienced he’s never been known as a diplomat, he can be frankly patronising without too much effort. The UUP do indeed cleave very strongly to the institutional aspects of the UK and if Scotland could prove itself able to exit the Union but remain British I think they’d view that as a direct assault on their conception of the essence of Britishness.
#11 by Craig Gallagher on March 24, 2012 - 4:43 pm
As to the links between Northern Ireland and Scotland, you’re right to say there is a particular link there that is not replicated in Norn’s relationship to parts of England or Ireland. It was overwhelming Lalland Scots that settled the Ulster plantations in the 17th century, as part of King James VI & I’s colonising initiative against the Gaels. Ulster would “drive a wedge through the Gaeltacht”, to use Tom Devine’s phrase, by seperating the Irish from the Hebridean Gaels, both Catholic communities divided by a largely Protestant occupation and plantation.
Because of that, the surnames in Norn Iron appear Scottish, and the Americans speak of immigrants from Ulster as “Scotch-Irish”. The point is that Scottish planters in Ulster traveled under a British flag, long before the British state came into being in the early 18th century. This makes it the oldest and most enduring of Britain’s colonies, but also – because of the fierce Presbyterianism of many of the original planters and their descendents – something of an ideological crusade. Remember that the “historic” part of Norn Iron’s troubles isn’t just limited to the 20th century. Thousands died in the 1641 Irish rebellion and the 1689 Williamite War, before Ireland started to become more of an imperial actor in the 18th century.
There was an article in the Belfast Telegraph (hope you don’t mind me linking: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/where-will-scottish-independence-leave-ulster-unionists-16104176.html) that put this better than I could hope to.
#12 by Iain Menzies on March 24, 2012 - 5:28 pm
“It is such an amateurish mistake to stupidly suggest that Scotland WON’T be inside Britain even after independence. Noone is suggesting that our nation’s geography is up for grabs here.”
I’m sorry but this is simply wrong. I consider myself to be both Scottish and British. neither identity has any relation to the geography. An independent Scotland would not be in Britain.
In the context that unionists talk of Britain is isnt a question of geography, its a question of politics. It is the POLITICAL ENTITY of Britian, not the geographic one.
What your saying is like saying that if Bavaria were to become independent of Germany than its ok cos it would still be IN Germany.
Or that saying Canada is IN America. This may technically be true, but it is, at best, pedantic, to suggest that when a person talks about America they dont mean the United States of.
#13 by Jeff on March 24, 2012 - 6:26 pm
“An independent Scotland would not be in Britain”
I struggle with your logic Iain. Britain is a collection of islands of which Great Britain is the largest, holding Scotland, England and Wales. You can, and will, still be British if Scotland becomes independent, though you can of course choose not to consider yourself it.
The political entity is surely the United Kingdom.
The difference with Germany is that there is no geographical structure called Germany that sits alongside the country Germany, the two are used interchangeably. Scandinavia will always be Scandinavia no matter how the countries inside of it choose to arrange themselves.
Perhaps I am being too particular. After all, I don’t think people should say America instead of USA, it’s just sloppy (and not dissimilar to when people say England when they mean the UK!)
#14 by Iain Menzies on March 24, 2012 - 6:39 pm
It all comes down to what you mean by Britain.
Now when i talk about Britain, or the British Government, or if we look to history and talk about the British Empire its not the isles that are being referenced. Indeed Ireland is part of the British Isles, yet I don’t think you would want to go on about how the British Army some how covers the republic.
You would be closer to a point if you were talking about Great Britain (the island), but you didn’t. Yes on a strict point I would still be British by your definition. But so what? I was born and raised in Lanarkshire, and beyond accepting that the west of Scotland is superior in every way from any other part of Scotland, it isn’t a factor in National Identity.
I call my self British. Because I identify with the British state. It is not for you (well it is a bit since this is your blog but i would ask you not to) to dictate how Identify.
Or put another way, a Gay man is a homosexual, would you really say that he can’t call himself gay, and that he has to call himself Homosexual because gay means happy?
#15 by Iain Menzies on March 24, 2012 - 6:42 pm
Incidently, you had Germans before you had a Germany ( in the sense of a unitary(ish) state) but that was a cultural as much as geographic reference. And that cultural reference, shall we call it a social union (?), formed a basis of a drive to political union. So it might be best if nationalist stayed away form the German example.
#16 by An Duine Gruamach on March 24, 2012 - 9:28 pm
Ah yes, the good ol’ Federal Republic of Germany, Austrian, most of Switzerland, Luxembourg and Lichtenstein. Good football they have.
#17 by Doug Daniel on March 26, 2012 - 9:36 am
“beyond accepting that the west of Scotland is superior in every way from any other part of Scotland”
As usual Iain, I completely disagree with you 😛
#18 by Iain Menzies on March 26, 2012 - 1:02 pm
That’s your east coast inferiority complex kicking in there. 😉
#19 by Ken on March 24, 2012 - 9:05 pm
“The political entity is surely the United Kingdom. ”
Well, yes but then you’re not UKish are you? You’re British.
#20 by Iain Menzies on March 24, 2012 - 11:02 pm
That rather being the point……
#21 by Angus McLellan on March 27, 2012 - 2:25 am
But there’s no need to exclude Northern Ireland when, thanks to Tom Nairn (and Robert Musil), there’s a perfectly good term which will embrace all of the people in the UK without recourse to amphibology: Ukanian.
#22 by J on March 24, 2012 - 7:46 pm
Trimble is frightened about what might happen to the still-fragile peace in NI if Scotland becomes independent, for what must to him seem frivolous reasons. If I were him, with his experiences, I’d be frightened. Can’t anyone understand that? Or are we not to care?
#23 by Jeff on March 24, 2012 - 7:57 pm
Of course that is understandable; but David is not just urging Scots to understand it, he is seemingly urging Scots to act and vote in a certain way because of it and, for me, that’s just not relevant to the debate in front of Scotland.
There is no good reason why Scotland being independent should have an adverse impact on any other nation.
#24 by Duncan on March 24, 2012 - 8:06 pm
In that case a prolonged period of silence from dinosaurs like Trimble would be most welcome. The divide and rule of partitioned Ireland has served him and his kind well, it is sod all to do with Belfast or London. Self determination applies to Scotland as it does to The Falklands, Gibraltar and Kosovo. He needs to butt out and look to his own problems. A bad move by the Torys and one they will regret. There are many people in Scotland, over 64% who regard them selves as Scottish. Britain is meaningless to us. And becoming less meaningful every time Cameron opens his patronising gob.
#25 by Craig Gallagher on March 24, 2012 - 8:33 pm
And, crude as it might seem, for the Government to enlist Northern Irish unionists to their cause is exactly the way to alienate a rather large group of east-of-Glasgow working class folk who probably aren’t immediately inclined towards Scottish Nationalism. That’s if my school friends are anything to by.
#26 by Iain Menzies on March 24, 2012 - 9:23 pm
Wait a Unionist who did a deal to bring SF into power in Belfast speaking to scots is going to make Catholic’s in Scotland vote for Independence?
#27 by Craig Gallagher on March 24, 2012 - 10:19 pm
I was commenting more on what he represents than who he is personally. Ulster Unionism and Scottish Unionism as aligned in the body of the Tories would alienate that community, I believe.
#28 by Indy on March 25, 2012 - 9:42 am
I can understand that but the kind of language he used is the exact opposite of the kind of language someone ought to use if that is the case.
NI’s best hope is to move on from tribalism which is what is happening. Scotland is also moving on from tribalism at a much faster pace. Wherever you stand, that’s a positive.
#29 by Doug Daniel on March 26, 2012 - 10:02 am
Explain the logic to me, because I don’t quite get it.
The struggle for a united Ireland has been bloody and violent. Hundreds have been killed, many more injured, and there has been much destruction. Despite all that, in the end, the geography of Ireland has not changed one bit since the original partition almost 90 years ago.
The struggle for Scottish independence has been completely political, and as Craig highlighted above, not a single drop of blood has been shed. We are now just two years from Scotland potentially attaining its independence.
Scottish independence might indeed bring Irish reunification a step closer – but only because it will hammer home the point that violence never solves anything. Could it be that this is what Trimble really fears – that republicans will realise “oh, that’s how to do it” – thus normalising Irish republicanism and making it much more difficult to paint them as “murderers” etc?
#30 by Ken on March 26, 2012 - 11:31 am
“but only because it will hammer home the point that violence never solves anything”
You kinda compartmentalised that statement to mean “Violence never solves anything in Ireland between 1921 and 2012” because between 1919-1921 a whole load of people would disagree that violence never solves anything.
Trimble’s use of language is just the typical Biblical style as is the norm for Ulster Unionist / Democratic Unionist mainline politicians. Nothing new there.
#31 by Doug Daniel on March 26, 2012 - 11:58 pm
Well, did it really solve the issue? Part of Ireland remains in the UK, and decades of continued violence followed. So violence led to an imperfect compromise rather than a proper solution.
But yes, I was really meaning more in terms of the present day. Perhaps why I said solves rather than solved…
#32 by Ken on March 27, 2012 - 12:22 pm
Well all I’m saying is, a whole load of people will say that violence did solve something – the Republic exists as a free country today. And without getting into the partition issue, the Republic existing as an independent entity was brought about through violence first… then talking.
And that’s why it’s important to see why decades of violence following through that prism. It taught people that if you do fight for long enough and bloody enough, you’ll ‘win’ in the end. For the IRA (both old and PIRA) the job wasn’t done in 1921, and the problem wasn’t (as you said correctly) ‘solved’. The Free State diverged and grew along it’s own path into the Republic and now to the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of those in the Republic – the issue has been ‘solved’. As the SNP repeat, independence is a process, it’s incremental, and in the eyes of those Republicans, the decades post-partition were simply the next stage of the process either through violence or not.
For the North, the political process shows there’s another way after violence – but you could easily make the argument that the political process wouldn’t exist in it’s current form without the previous violence dragging it kicking and screaming into existence. Much like the original 1919-21 War. Can violence be defended if it brings about change, even if it’s as you correctly state ‘an imperfect compromise’? (And to be clear, I wasn’t criticising you)
#33 by An Duine Gruamach on March 24, 2012 - 9:30 pm
If Trimble reckons his community might react violently to Scotland becoming independent, then to me that suggests he’s got two options:
1) Try and persuade the Scots not to vote for independence
2) Get his community to grow the hell up.
#34 by Thomas Widmann on March 24, 2012 - 10:48 pm
I’m fully aware that Ireland was in a personal union with England for a long time before Scotland and England joined up, but given that the UK was formed as a union between GB and Ireland, I’m not sure it’s technically speaking entirely obvious that NI should stay with England (and Wales) rather than with Scotland.
To express it in mathematical notation, UK = (((England + Wales) + Scotland) + Northern Ireland), not UK = (((England + Wales) + Northern Ireland) + Scotland), so it’s not entirely clear that the only way to split up the union is as rUK = (England + Wales + Northern Ireland) and S = (Scotland), without also considering rUK = (England + Wales) and S = (Scotland + Northern Ireland).
Please note that I’m not advocating this at all — I’m sure lots of pro-independence Scots would vote no if independence came with Northern Ireland attached.
However, it would be an interesting situation if Northern Ireland in 2015 decided to follow Scotland rather than England, given the cultural links discussed in this article.
#35 by Craig Gallagher on March 25, 2012 - 8:01 am
You’re not quite right on this. In 1603, the crowns of England and Ireland were inherited by the King of Scotland, James VI & I, creating the Union of the Crowns. But the first full incorporating Union in these isles was between Scotland and England in 1707, on far more favourable terms for the former than Ireland managed in 1801 when it merged with the British state. In that event, Norn Iron is a more recent addition to the Union than Scotland. The problem, as I suggested in a previous comment, is that Ulster has far more concrete links to unionist Scotland than to England as a whole. The historical English colonising initiative was in Dublin; the Ulster plantation, however, was settled by Scottish Presbyterians.
None of this is to disagree with your concluding point, that it would be really interesting to see how Northern Ireland would adapt to relying on England. My suspicion is it would struggle, and that Scottish Independence would be a domino event towards a united Ireland.
#36 by douglas clark on March 25, 2012 - 12:28 am
Thomas @ 22,
Another way of looking at it is that they are four seperate nations. Each has a right to claim independence from the rest. For your equation to work both Scotland and Northern Ireland would both have to secede independently through a referendum and then, and only then, agree between themselves to a re-unification.
Whether Northern Ireland would follow Scotland down a path of independence from Westminster is another question entirely. I am unaware of any – true – independence movement in Northern Ireland. Both the major players seem united in the need for Northern Ireland to be tied to a larger partner, in one case England and in the other Eire.
Frankly, I see your scenario as extremely unlikely.
#37 by Penderyn on March 25, 2012 - 2:03 am
Just remember before the act of union the welsh and cornish were called the british by english state and english speakers.
the term british have been taken from those of brythonic culture…..and turned into a 1707 hanoverian identity…..
most english are ancestorally of the celts/indo europeans……what is wrong with a confederation of indepedent republics within the british isles..unionists? you support a 1700 state not an islands heritage
#38 by Gary Campbell on March 25, 2012 - 2:37 am
If the Northern Irish wanted to join the Republic or remain part of the UK I am sure you would hear very little comment from Scotland on the wishes declared by the electorate in that country outside of west central Scotland.Those of us who are politically active in Scotland would respect the views of the electorate over there and not stick our noses in where it would not be welcome.I am convinced that the unionists fractured response to a growing campaign for independence is so divided by historical political enemies they will continue to shoot themselves in the foot and ultimately they will destroy the message they are trying to feed us.
#39 by Stephen Glenn on March 25, 2012 - 3:04 am
I’m not sure that Trimble is solely talking to Scots on this issue. But I sense that there is a growing concern among the Northern Ireland Unionist community that an independent Scotland is bad for them as part of the Union.
As has been expressed above many of the protestant faith, including my own forebears in Ulster were Scots. The tie to Scotland is stronger than any other part of the Union, not least because the closest land mass that many can see is Scotland and indeed Rathlin to the north may well be the most southern of the Hebrides rather that really a part of Ireland.
The worry for Unionists in Northern Ireland of course is that after generations of struggle and fighting to maintain their ‘British’ identity, it could very easily end with a decision from another part of the United Kingdom. Looking at the legal language at the Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act and its schedule (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/47/section/1 and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/47/schedule/1) a change in what constitutes the United Kingdom may well necessitate another poll of the people.
That is probably the biggest fear that people like Trimble have.
#40 by Indy on March 25, 2012 - 10:33 am
There is no reason why those ties should be lessened. The cultural, social and family links between Scotland and Northern Ireland do not depend on being in a political union with England & Wales. It makes absolutely no sense to preserve 18th century constitutional arrangements in perpetuity when the rest of the world has changed.
#41 by GMcM on March 26, 2012 - 4:44 pm
We voted in 1997 to change the constitutional arrangements and it had nothing to do with the rest of the world changing. We changed the arrangements to modernise the relationship between these nations. Nothing is preventing us from changing the constitution in future while remaining a part of the UK.
Why should we look to other countries instead of looking to what is in our own best interests. ‘If everyone jumped off a cliff….’ springs to mind here.
#42 by Angus McLellan on March 26, 2012 - 8:02 pm
Since you asked, “if everyone jumped off a cliff” and they were nearly always none the worse for it and usually much the happier, yes, I would definitely jump too. You’re assuming that there’s an alternative, but there’s no evidence that significant change can be achieved in any other way.
#43 by Doug Daniel on March 27, 2012 - 12:02 am
Also, G talks about jumping off cliffs, but similarly we could characterise the current scenario as putting our fingers in our ears, shutting our eyes and shouting “LALALALALA”.
There’s a difference between not being drawn into blindly doing what everyone else is doing, and just refusing to join the crowd for the sake of trying to look different/being scared of change.
#44 by Alan Day on March 25, 2012 - 11:56 am
I believe an Independent Scotland would adversely affect the rest of the UK, particulalrly Northern Ireland with it close cultural and social affinity to Scotland. The biggest party in Northern Ireland is the DUP, they are Unionists but staunchly pro devolution and have in recent years been deemed`Ulster Nationalists` by the Ulster Unionist Party. I have to wonder if an indy Scotland would lead to a revival of the Ulster Independence movement from the 1970`s
#45 by RJ on March 26, 2012 - 10:51 pm
Speak for yourself Alan – it won’t affect my identity as an (NI residing) Irishman. Scottish independence will create a nightmare for you 6 county unionists as they frantically try to reinvent their identity as one linked to the English rather than Ulster-Scots. Worst of all for you is this Alan, as your representatives continuous panicking show. this will lead them to make more incomprehensibly stupid statements. This will only have the net effect of persuading more floating voters to make a clean start and vote to have their own country free from the likes of Empey, Trimble, and Robinson. Sit back and watch the fun!
#46 by Barbarian on March 25, 2012 - 10:34 pm
Interesting article to be honest. The impact to the other devolved countries has never truly been considered.
#47 by Equal Person on March 25, 2012 - 11:06 pm
No, it’s fiercest opposition is not the minority of the people from the six of the nine counties of Ulster.
I believe, if they were silly enough to get themselves involved in Scotland’s political affairs they’d most definitely be signing their own death warrants – by helping bring about the rapid demise of their existing position of what usually lies beneath London’s heels.
The hundreds of thousands of Irish Scots in favour of self government of Scotland for the people of Scotland in lieu of management of Scotland for benefit of the city of London via Westminster would ensure those in the north of Ireland outvoted the unionists and would be present in the north of Ireland come the elections and probable reunification referendum of 2016.
*Mind your own n we’ll do likewise/Don’t n we won’t. If I were unionists I’d be extremely concerned incase the Irish Republican support spilled onto Scotland’s streets pretending to be unionists campaigning for London*
The SNP’s fiercest opposition comes (as always) from within, no-where else.
#48 by GMcM on March 26, 2012 - 2:30 pm
Sorry if I’m misreading your comment but are you suggesting that reunification of Ireland is dependent on Scottish separation from rUK?
Nationalism in Scotland is not the same as nationalism in Ireland. The histories are different (the position within the Empire/UK).
I support reunification of Ireland but I do not support separating Scotland from (to avoid doubt) the political union of Britain.
Also, and I’m sure there are nationalists on here who will agree, your choice of language (i.e. beneath London’s heels) is cringeworthy. Even big Eck has said Scotland is not in need of liberation. We are not an oppressed nation.
Although AS says the above he should have a word with those who support his party (particularly online) when they do paint the picture of an occuppied, oppressed nation with talk of Scotland being ruled by a foreign country and by a government we didn’t elect etc. etc.
#49 by Indy on March 26, 2012 - 11:13 pm
Nationalism is nationalism wherever you are. You either believe in self-determination for people or you don’t. Now that the SNP has got into a position of power and is able to deliver a referendum the Scottish people will determine their own future themselves. Since presumably you support their right to do that your comments don’t make that much sense.
#50 by Doug Daniel on March 27, 2012 - 12:08 am
Salmond can’t police what every pro-independence person thinks or says, and neither should he. If people feel aggrieved at being ruled by a government that Scotland rejected, then they should be allowed to say that, especially as it’s an actual fact – the Tories only have 1 seat here. It would be like Caroline Lucas becoming Prime Minister because the Greens won most of the seats in Wales, yet she was still the only Green MP in England.
While I wouldn’t call it “occupied” or “oppressed” (unless perhaps in full rant mode…), if that’s how people feel, then who are we to tell them to adjust their language?
#51 by Iain Menzies on March 27, 2012 - 1:38 pm
The tories only have one MP, true, but then whats that got to do with it? The referendum is gonna be on the Scottish Parliament electoral register so isnt the relevant number of tories 16? Of the one sixth of the scottish contingent of MSP’s? Or maybe 143 councillors?
#52 by Chris on March 27, 2012 - 2:09 pm
I think the comment that not one person has died in the pursuit of Scottish indepence smacks of “Wha’s like us?” and belittles the people of Ireland or India or Kenya or South Africa who have had to go to war to bring about democratic change.
I don’t think we are morally superior, we have full control of our political situation and no one is thwarting our ambitions, let alone ruthlessly repressing it.
#53 by J on March 27, 2012 - 8:04 pm
Just picking up on this thread. The comment by Equal Person is a bit worrying. Signing death warrants is something that many folk in NI might, just a tad, be concerned about! And RJ’s comment on ‘watching the fun’ is simply tasteless from where I sit, I’m afraid.
Jeff is one of the sanest independence-supporters around, who is trying to raise folks’ game, and Better Nation is a decent blog. But I am concerned with this statement:
“There is no good reason why Scotland being independent should have an adverse impact on any other nation.”
But Trimble is entitled to say, on the basis of hard-won experience (and he’s had quite a journey), that it might well, and to argue that a vote by a nation with such close ties to Ulster — and they are *very* close ties, as anyone who has been in the east end of Glasgow in July will know – will have a knock-on effect which surely we should worry about. And as someone who has spent some time in (and love) NI, I care. Surely a better nation should be emphasising duties and responsibilities and solidarity, rather than demanding rights and, I fear, walking away?
“No man is an island; any man’s death diminishes me.” It’s a great line.
#54 by Jeff on March 28, 2012 - 12:04 pm
Thanks for the kind words but I guess we may just have to disagree here Jeremy.
What you (and David Trimble) seem to be getting at is that the effect that Scottish independence might have on Northern Ireland should be enough to change what would be a Yes vote into a No vote.
I have no problem with Scotland being mindful of the impact that changes will have on other nations but we can hardly curtail our ambitions for fear of treading on others’ toes.
I stand by my comment, Scotland being independent shouldn’t adversely impact on NI, but if they ‘feel’ that it does, then they have to look inwards rather than outwards for where the underlying problem lies.
#55 by Alan Day on March 28, 2012 - 3:01 pm
RJ #45 `reinvent` identity – think you will find that there have been calls for Ulster Independence within the commonwealth with dominion status aka Canada from the 1930`s onwards….
#56 by J on March 28, 2012 - 7:26 pm
Yes, we will have to disagree here, Jeff. It’s not ‘feeling’ — it’s fear. And it’s a fear which has a demonstrable basis.
NI, god knows, has done a LOT of looking inwards for underlying problems: you could even argue it’s done too much. My line is: is it not possible to be ambitious for Scotland, yet cognisant of responsibilities to folk who will always be very near neighbours? And what does “being mindful” mean, other than warm words, if being ambitious means turning your back?
One other thing: the date that gets chalked on walls in Glasgow isn’t 1707: it’s 1690. I deplore that, but I can’t ignore that. Let’s be careful.