Home Rule

[tanya.bailey]

Hey all I am once again working on a school project, this time about the Nationalist movement in Ireland. I would like to present ideas about home rule in other parts of the UK as well. If possible could some of you post some comments I could use in this paper. Unfortunately I can't use opinions of Americans...so I need residents to respond to these questions:
1. Should Scotland be independent from Britain?
2. What benefits would come from such a split?
3. What type of govenment would the newly independent country operate under?
4. Why hasn't a larger push for home rule been present before? (maybe it has been, these are my professor's questions not mine
Thanks you guys!
Tanya

[Polwarth]

Why not do an 'Independence' search of this site - or even.... a google?

[tanya.bailey]

I had looked at several of the threads on this site, but didn't want to use them without explicit permission of the poster. In the US we have really strict laws against plagarism, that include printing someone's blog posts without their permission. You can actually be kicked out of university(hehe I picked up that this was the proper term for it!) for printing someone else's ideas. Also I have already google searched but mostly got information on the political parties and such; I was hoping to more humanize it, if you know what I mean. Also many of the posts were copy and pastes of articles or didn't answer the questions I was hoping for. Sorry if my inquiries seem continuous I am just very curious and want to get an actual Scots' view of things not Americanized ideas.

[ochilsman]

I have been a supporter of Scottish independence for many years. I believe we would survive very well. It would be difficult for a time but you just have to look at similiar countries such as Ireland, Norway and Sweden.As far as the lack of push for independence is concerned, I believe much of this is due to the propaganda spiel spewed out by the Unionist parties and English media who keep telling us we are little children who can't be trusted to look after our own affairs. There is a new distinct pride in our nation since we got our own parliament. You just have to look at the many thousands who attended the opening. As for government, that would be up to the wishes of the Scottish public.

[tanya.bailey]

Interesting, thanks for replying. Would you mind giving me your full name so that I can cite your comments in my research paper? If you want you can PM it to me. Thanks!

[Crofter]

Your posting specifies that your project is about the Nationalist Movement in Ireland. Are you referring to the position pre 1922, resulting in the creation of the Republic of Ireland, or the present troubles in Northern Ireland?

Nationalism, or the Home Rule struggle, in Ireland pre 1922 cannot in any way be compared with movements for independence in Scotland.

Britain, or Great Britain, or the United Kingdom, is the result of the union of four countries that were once independent of each other, Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England. As far as Scotland was concerned this union was welcomed by the influential elite at the time when the majority of our English partners were dead set against it. The resultant union benefitted Scotland to the extent that she was given access to world markets that had previously been closed to her, Canadian and American colonies to mention but two.

When we say Britain we are referring to a state that includes Scotland, when we say an independent Scotland we are actually saying Britain as a state no longer exists. We would have Scotland and England as two separate nations.

With the best will in the world it would be difficult for a population of about five and a half million to compete on equal terms with over sixty million. The dissolution would not be pretty; England would make sure that her interests would not, in any way, be subordinated by Scotland’s. Our political and economic relationship with the European Union, and the rest of the world, would have to be re-negotiated. Our industrial base has all but disappeared; most of what is left is foreign owned. Our fishing and agricultural policies are determined and governed by the European Union. Our financial services, apart from a few token head offices, are based in London and Wall Street, and determined by super-rich spivs. Upwards of seventy per cent of the land in Scotland is owned by foreign individuals or conglomerates.

We would be forsaking the union, with all its faults, for what? A variety of individual vested interests that would bleed us dry and then move on. Within ten years we would be a charity case begging some other grouping for our salvation. More than likely we would be under marshal law. Scotland has always had a higher degree of militancy than other parts of the UK. This would accelerate with a vengeance and it would be directed against ourselves. We could no longer blame England for our woes.

Your own country is a good example of what a strong union can achieve. You fought a civil war to maintain it. If the north and the south had gone their separate ways, would the United States of America be the power in the world that it is today? If any one state of the union chose to declare independence from the others, what’s to stop them? Most of them have a population exceeding the UK, far less Scotland. Likewise their resources, their wealth and their industry. A Texan will insist that he is a Texan; does he not have as much pride in his state, maybe even more, than any Scotsman has in Scotland? Of course he has, but he also has the common sense not to cut off his nose to spite his face...

So far the hue and cry for independence in Scotland is fairly muted because, like the Texan, most Scots believe that suicide is not painless. The devolution of certain powers to the Scottish government in Edinburgh has already resulted in a degree of independence. Control of, and policies on, education, health, transport, infrastructure and many social and community areas are in Scottish hands. The legal system and the church in Scotland are different from the rest of the union. It is debatable, and continues to be vigorously debated in the Scottish Parliament, whether those controls that they already have are being wisely exercised.

The present UK Prime Minister, and Chancellor of the Exchequer, are Scots. These are the two highest offices of state. Since 1997 there have been more Scots in positions of ministerial power than at any time in our history. Considering that they are also Labour ministers, the party of the working class, their contribution to the country of Scotland, and the condition of the Scottish working man, leaves much to be desired. If anything we are worse off.

Nothing would please me more than seeing a totally independent Scotland, but not at any cost. This generation has not yet produced a leader of the stature to bring it off.

Nothing I have heard so far in the big conversation has allayed my fears for the worst. There is no joined up system ready, they do not explain how it’s all going to work. I cannot explain to anyone how it will work, nobody has explained it satisfactorily to me. When they do I will be better placed to revise my pessimistic view. At the moment the state is the biggest employer in Scotland. Could that be sustained? We have representatives at two or three levels locally, more in Edinburgh, more in London, more in Europe. In addition we have regional and national authorities, boards and quangos for anything you care to think of. All busy controlling every aspect of our life. Yet, when one asks a question, or need something doing, nobody wants to know.
Regards,

Crofter.

[tanya.bailey]

Crofter,
I had never thought about nationalism in Europe in comparison to America; what a great example and it really made me think. Thank you for your reply, I really appreciate your input.