Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Do you support Scottish independence?

POST REPLY
Log-in to remove advertisement.

Do you support Scottish independence?

Yes, an independent Scotland will be a socialist ‘state’
6
16%
No, an independent Scotland will just be another capitalist country.
17
46%
Other, please state.
14
38%
 
Total votes : 37
Post 17 Feb 2014, 12:43
Well, with Salmond saying Scotland will keep the pound, bang goes a Scotland of free access.
But, they don’t have a bedroom tax in Scotland and to many on the left no bedroom tax = socialism.
But what should socialists do? Clearly the SNP or any Scottish government cannot abolish commodity production so capitalism will still exists. Even if nationalisation = socialism (which it doesn’t) that clearly is not on the agenda post independence. Any increase in welfare spending will have to come from somewhere, so it that sustainable in the long run? But hand-outs are also not socialism.
Should we, that get a vote, abstain from the vote?
Post 17 Feb 2014, 12:56
I voted no, they have been part of the UK for so long that this would be a very big stepback, back to the Middle-Ages. If they really want their independance, they should restore the Stuart and merge with France.
Post 17 Feb 2014, 14:51
OP-Bagration wrote:
I voted no, they have been part of the UK for so long that this would be a very big stepback, back to the Middle-Ages. If they really want their independance, they should restore the Stuart and merge with France.


Alan-Breck Stewart?


Wot, they should merge with France and become a socialist 'state'. Would be a logistic nightmare.
Post 17 Feb 2014, 15:32
Well Yami you have a loaded question to begin with.

Is independence for the post-colonies bad because it's not socialism, or perhaps they ought to have waited for the imperialists to develop their productive forces before up and leaving
It's almost like you don't want the basic programme of nationalizations and planning to take place.

Now, Scotland non est Angola, but how the hell is any socialist not supposed to think that dismantling the proud waiver of the Butcher's Apron (aka the Union Jack) isn't a good thing? A Scottish Republic could be a step forward if it has progressive and socialist movements growing to become dominant forces within society.

I would give a provisional 'yes' (or rather other because your 'yes' option is stupid)
Post 17 Feb 2014, 15:53
I support their right to determine this matter for themselves, without the blackmail to which they are being subjected by the British and European political establishment now; but what is being put up for vote this year can hardly be considered independence any more. Without economic independence, what's the point? The proposal on the table is so minimalistic that it's hardly worth the effort. The proposal is basically dead in the water anyway, and all the radical left of the Yes campaign can do is cry that it's not fair.

I personally sympathise with Scottish independence, if only on an emotional level, and I also think that any step towards dismantling a powerful imperialist state like the UK offers new opportunities. But people should read James Connolly on this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/connol ... socnat.htm (including a very famous quotation).

The "independence" of the SNP has already been gutted and minimised to an extent that Connolly would not even have thought of. Now, in Scotland, the question of a "Republic" is not even an issue, because the SNP want to keep the monarchy. Now, it's not even a question of "Nationalism without socialism", because there's not really an attempt at nationalism as such.

The leftist appendage of the SNP campaign (sorry, I mean "Radical Independence") would of course like to see it differently, but they are impotent to do anything about it. They should wake up and stop whining about that horrible, horrible George Galloway and recognise that they're basically dead in the water, and prepare their supporters for the post-referendum situation, when the perspectives for independence, "radical" or otherwise, will be farther away than ever.
Post 17 Feb 2014, 15:59
I can't see that "independence" for Scotland would be any great victory for Socialism. In fact, it would probably be a massive setback for the country as a whole. Instead of being able to rely "Scot free" on the rest of the U.K. for vital social services and aid, it would now most likely have to purchase those things at a premium. Otherwise, where else would it turn to? The U.S.? Putin? China? An independent Scotland would become a second world economy with a third world infrastructure in relatively short order.
Post 17 Feb 2014, 16:19
As for deciding for themselves...erm, only those living in Scotland are getting the vote. Which is bizarre as it concerns everyone in the UK. Why can't everyone in the UK get a vote?
As for being a republic, as if that makes a difference! The good old US of A is a republic and they ain't socialist. Well they are if you are a follower of Ayn Rand

As for liberation movements...yep, waste of time, I don't support them. Get rid of the foreign capitalists so we can be exploited by home grown ones? No thanks.
I don't know where nationalization worked but it certainly was a failure in the UK.
Why am I opposed to liberation movements?
Because they sell the lie of the alleged community of interest between workers and the employers. The capitalists extol the workers to fight and die to liberate a country they do not own. Great for the capitalists, who never visit the ‘front’ sit and home rubbing their hands with glee. Not so good for those workers who die or get maimed in the process.

For those in favour of Scottish independence how will Scotland avoid the austerity that all other capitalist governments are forced to impose?

Is Alex Salmond hoodwinking Scottish workers by telling them that the problems they are face are due to being governed by London and not Edinburgh. Surely in that he is wrong, the problems they face are caused by the capitalist system, which exists all over the World and will continue to exist in an independent Scotland. Do you think he is genuine in his believing this or he is deliberately fooling the workers in Scotland? He even held talks with business leaders telling them not to panic! So clearly they are being reassured that Scotland will be a great place to invest and make money for the capitalist class.
Post 17 Feb 2014, 19:38
Liberation isn't needed anymore guys. Just pack up and let imperialism roll. It can't last too long right?

That said Scottish "independence" in this case is no independence at all and seems like all it would do is ramp up exploitation of an even weaker Scotland. A lot is being promised too that I don't see how anyone could fulfill.
Post 17 Feb 2014, 19:59
Quote:
They should wake up and stop whining about that horrible, horrible George Galloway and recognise that they're basically dead in the water, and prepare their supporters for the post-referendum situation, when the perspectives for independence, "radical" or otherwise, will be farther away than ever.

I like George Galloway. What does he say about Scottish independance?
Post 17 Feb 2014, 21:02
OP-Bagration wrote:
I like George Galloway. What does he say about Scottish independence?

George Galloway is pro-union, though I think he is more than capable of speaking for himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k7nZ1PFaSQ

There are a few things about Scottish Independance that disquiet me.

  • Scotland already is barely keeping a lid on sectarianism, I don't see that a surge in nationalism is going to improve that, in fact I expect it would get worse.
  • I understand that 20% of the country's industrial production is Grangemouth. Grangemouth is privately owned. That is a lot of power to put in the hands of one owner, and the recent closure/reopening saga should leave nobody in any doubt how he would wield that power
  • I don't think I have heard very clearly exactly what the SNPs plans are, just a lot about what they won't do. I haven't heard anything that will be so different

I can be just warming up. I used to vote SNP, I used to think Independence was a good idea. I remember the frustration the day after the General Election in 1992 when despite all that we still had a Tory government, it was as if Scottish opinion was meaningless. I do think that was what really set the ball rolling. It is an issue for all UK. There is a lot to be said for devolution and autonomy, but I don't think Independence is good for Scotland, and if they go the political balance will be upset in Westminster for years. I feel for the North of England.
Post 17 Feb 2014, 21:27
OP-Bagration wrote:
I like George Galloway. What does he say about Scottish independance?


He campaigns for a "no" vote, so people like the "Radical Independence Campaign" have cried many bitter tears about Galloway: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/03 ... -unionism/ It is remarkable that Galloway, although a Scot himself, has been electorally unsuccessful in Scotland so far (e.g. the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2011).

Here is what the communists say: http://www.scottishcommunists.org.uk/li ... hite-paper

I have not yet been able to watch this video, but I thought I should post it here as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prq8NvCFPKQ
Post 17 Feb 2014, 23:57
"Yes, an independent Scotland will be a socialist ‘state’"? "No, an independent Scotland will just be another capitalist country." ... People are not voting in this referendum for is Scotland will turn socialist or capitalist, they are voting for national independence because some people believe their country is oppressed/exploited by England.. If this is wrong or not is an entirely different question. The Scottish National Party will turn Scotland to the left, the SNP opposes neoliberalism and Salomond is correct when he says that Westminister is full of neoliberals. An independent Scotland equals a turn to the left, that is, what some of you may call, the "capitalist left".
Post 19 Feb 2014, 03:32
Why support Scottish independence if it will be just another insignificant capitalist country? It will keep the Queen as head of state and keep the bourgeois form of democracy in tact. Scotland will just be another member of the Commonwealth realms and NATO. From my standpoint Scotland has significant power within the UK itself. If supporting Scotland from a purely nationalistic point of view, then why not support every former country or city-state within Europe? Bring back Flanders, Wallonia, Bavaria, and split Italy into two while you're at it.
Post 20 Feb 2014, 17:23
No 14, I remember reading that blog a week ago. I think I ended up rupturing something from laughing so hard at the really weird link between Galloway and the Orangemen (?), the Orange Order has sweet FA to do with anything Scotland based. The "radical" camp is dead, if there were a strong wish for a socialist programme, which there isn't (we have to live in the real world, not some weird ultra-left fantasy in which everything is considered a black and white "socialism vs capitalism" binary, which nothing has ever been nor will ever be) then I suppose the whole campaign might be okay.

It isn't and never has been a choice for the Scottish on whether or not Scotland becomes independent from the UK and socialist, those setting the agenda aren't socialists by a long stretch, just social democrats that haven't properly understood the implications of if they left the UK in such a hurry. They've already borked things up by publishing that tl;dr manifesto/wishlist which promises a load of things they haven't considered with any other national entity within the UK, like whether or not they keep the £. I really have no idea why you are even including "socialism" at all here, it's probably naive to think it has anything at all to do with the question of Scottish nationality.

Thinking about the people on the streets of Glasgow, Dundee or Fort William, staying in the UK is probably their best bet rather than fragging about getting trade deals, applying to join a currency union/setting up their own currency, the absolute uncertainty of a small, pretty weak country. I would vote no if I were Scottish.

I voted other here, because Yami has royally screwed the question up. It's a farce, I hope you don't get to set the question for the referendum!
Post 20 Feb 2014, 23:33
Yes, I linked to that piece specifically to highlight the absurdity. Apparently, with lots of twists, turns, roundabouts, and guilt by association, Galloway, and the entire left part of the 'no' campaign, are complicit in both Catholic, Protestant, and Islamic sectarianism at the same time. And they would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids.

Out of all of Scotland's problems at the moment, surely the biggest threat must be a Catholic resurgence, led by Galloway, subjugating all non-Catholics. Maybe they could dig up and reanimate the rotten corpse of Bloody Mary as well to burn some heretics at the stake.
Post 12 Mar 2014, 00:42
I support Scottish independence fully, a socialist Scotland would be fantastic. However, if the system is capitalism then the independent workers of Scotland shall lead the Scots to socialism.

OP-Bagration wrote:
I voted no, they have been part of the UK for so long that this would be a very big stepback, back to the Middle-Ages. If they really want their independance, they should restore the Stuart and merge with France.


The same argument was used by people against Irish independence in the 1910s. How could it even set it back to the middle ages? And you think that the Scots would just become independent from a monarchy and establish another one? What type of regressive argument is that?
Post 12 Mar 2014, 01:58
Eire wrote:
The same argument was used by people against Irish independence in the 1910s. How could it even set it back to the middle ages? And you think that the Scots would just become independent from a monarchy and establish another one? What type of regressive argument is that?

The Irish are a different case. They had nothing to gain from remaining within the United Kingdom. There is a historic prejudice between English and Irish that lacks between English and Scottish. A deeply Catholic country ruled by a Protestant monarch that is second class to Britain is not the same case as Scotland today. Most noteworthy is that after Irish independence, Ireland remained impoverished for several decades.
Post 12 Mar 2014, 03:52
Soviet192491 wrote:
The Irish are a different case. They had nothing to gain from remaining within the United Kingdom. There is a historic prejudice between English and Irish that lacks between English and Scottish. A deeply Catholic country ruled by a Protestant monarch that is second class to Britain is not the same case as Scotland today. Most noteworthy is that after Irish independence, Ireland remained impoverished for several decades.



The Irish and the Scottish are the same case, they are both Celtic nations that have had their culture stripped and taken away from them by the British. You obviously haven't studied enough history of the Celtic isles and the Anglo imperialist machine.
Post 12 Mar 2014, 14:27
Eire wrote:
The Irish and the Scottish are the same case, they are both Celtic nations that have had their culture stripped and taken away from them by the British. You obviously haven't studied enough history of the Celtic isles and the Anglo imperialist machine.


I am sorry you are mistaken, the majority of Scottish people are not Gaelic. The lowland Scottish are not Gaelic, they speak Scots which is a dialect of English. It was the highlanders who were Gaelic. The majority of Scots are non-Gaelic Protestant lowlanders and not highlanders. Or are you going to say that the lowlanders somehow are immigrants in Scotland who occupied the country and stole the land and culture?
Post 12 Mar 2014, 23:26
Political Interest wrote:

I am sorry you are mistaken, the majority of Scottish people are not Gaelic. The lowland Scottish are not Gaelic, they speak Scots which is a dialect of English. It was the highlanders who were Gaelic. The majority of Scots are non-Gaelic Protestant lowlanders and not highlanders. Or are you going to say that the lowlanders somehow are immigrants in Scotland who occupied the country and stole the land and culture?


Scots isn't even a language. The people of Scotland don't even see it as a valid language:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications ... 06105123/0

The lowlanders current culture is a result of English influence in that area. Sharing a border with England and the time that Scotland has been under British rule has caused them to lose most of their identity. The lowlanders are like the Northern Irish which have had most of their culture stolen from them by the British. Its like putting a ice cube in a hot cup of water, over time the ice cube is going to lose its shape and dissolve. Its called cultural assimilation search it up as you have no clue on the Celtic struggle against the Anglo people's attempts at killing the Celtic culture.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
[ Top ]