Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scotland starts renewed case for independence

gov.scot

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 745 posts

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#321

Post by matthews2 »

ErikCorry wrote: post #198
cstross wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, with one key difference: the Brexit campaigners insisted that the UK was being tyrannized and forced to implement policies set in Brussels by the EU (despite having full political representation in making those policy decisions), whereas Scotland is ultimately under UK control -- large elements of public policy are reserved for Westminster, which means control by a succession of governments Scotland hasn't voted…

Scotland hasn't voted for the government since 1955? 2005, largest party in Scotland was Labour, Labour won the UK election. same for 2001, 1997, 1974 (both elections), 1966, 1964. Until recently Scotland always voted Labour, and Labour didn't always win. But you could say the same about most Northern English cities, that doesn't mean they should form a new country.

> that doesn't mean they should form a new country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Independence_Party

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#322

Post by slightwinder »

brigandish wrote: post #150
slightwinder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Democratic votes need the consent of the loser, not I didn't get my way so let's have another vote. That's only true till the situation changes. If the reason for your vote disappeared, then it's legit to reevaluate your vote. > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU Which means two third, the majority, voted for the EU? Seems like a legit reason for a new vote.

Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year. Life does not go backwards. I'm still not clear why that means "once in a generation" becomes "as soon as I can get what I want". > > a third of those voting for independence also want(ed) independence from the EU > Which means two third, the majority, voted for the EU? Seems like a legit reason for a new vote. Has that figure changed dramatically? Even if it ha…

> Anyone can claim the situation has changed, every year.

Yes, they can, and some do. But don't also need to convince the people and follow some regulations for this? It's not like they can randomly vote for anything and everything every day as they like, or can they?

> Has that figure changed dramatically?

Make a vote to figure out?

> "once in a generation"

What exactly does this mean? I mean, sure, back in 2014(?) this was a great term. But back then, the world was very different. The world was at peace and smoothing well, more or less. With Brexit, the climate movement in 2019, then the Pandemia and now the war this all changed drastically. Even if the Brexit had worked well somehow in the world back then, the pandemia and now the war destroyed all those chances and shifted the people views significantly.

I mean until some months ago, we still were convinced that pandemia was ending and the world was going to move smoothly again, continuing were it paused from 2019. Russia changed all that and made clear that the cozy times of the 201x years are over. The generation of 2014 is done, the world from then is no more, and a new generation takes over now.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#323

Post by Symbiote »

Danieru wrote: post #177
osullivj wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Northern Ireland is not a nation. Ireland is a nation with four provinces: Ulster, Leinster, Munster and Connaught. Six of Ulster's nine counties are part of the UK, and the other three are part of the Repulblic of Ireland.

The Irish are a nation, a people with a unique language and identity. That is what OP is referring to. It the same definition of nation as in "nation state". Namely a nation state is a state with one dominant people. Germany, Japan, Thailand, Ireland, are nation states. US, UK, are by their nature not nation states. So yes, North Ireland represents a nation seperate to the English, the Welsh, or the Scotts.

Ireland is not a nation state! Two sovereign states (the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom) each control part of the Irish nation / island of Ireland.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#324

Post by rayiner »

scott_w wrote: post #185
carnitine wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who exactly in the cabinet is far right? Truss, Sunak, Javid, Raab and the rest hardly come across as the right wing mob. Rees-Mogg is the only one who maybe comes remotely close and he’s got one of the most minor positions.

Truss is moving to break a treaty to appease the far right nutters in her party. Javid, as Home Secretary, stripped a teenager of her British citizenship, leaving her stateless and stranded somewhere in Iraq or Syria.

If I’m thinking of the same person, she’s ethnically Bangladeshi. But Bangladesh wouldn’t let her back in the country even though it has a right of return for people of Bangladeshi ethnicity: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/bangladesh-will-not-ac...

Bangladesh is an officially socialist country. You’re just defining “far right” to include everyone who disagrees with a narrow view of immigration.

Regarding your sibling comment: is Bangladesh “racist” against Bangladeshis for not taking her? What an absurd smear.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#325

Post by scott_w »

forgingahead wrote: post #310
scott_w wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truss is moving to break a treaty to appease the far right nutters in her party. Javid, as Home Secretary, stripped a teenager of her British citizenship, leaving her stateless and stranded somewhere in Iraq or Syria.

For those reading along, the "teenager" being referenced is Shamima Begum, who ran away from home when she was 15 to allegedly join ISIS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamima_Begum There's an interesting discussion to be had about whether a government official can strip someone of their citizenship (even though in the UK it seems to be part of their powers under the Nationality Act) - it's not correct to frame this…

I didn’t say he deported a teenager. I said he stripped her citizenship, leaving her stateless to die in service of appealing to racists to vote Tory.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#326

Post by andybak »

mantas wrote: post #225
SilverBirch wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me, but literally today is the first day that the government starting flying asylum seekers to Rwanda[1], and yesterday they published legislation with the intention of breaking international law[2]. They've also recently curtailed rights to legal protest[3]. The Prime Minister has a history of law breaking including illegally shutting down our parliament[4]. This government only got their majority when UKIP c…

Denmark's left-wing government is planning to send away asylum seekers too. It's interesting times when protecting borders from illegal immigration is seen as „far right“. It's not „far right“ rising, it's some people pushing Overton window extremely to the left. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwan...

> it's some people pushing Overton window extremely to the left.

Everyone that learns about the Overton window is immediately convinced the other side has been pulling it in their direction for years.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#327

Post by easytiger »

WJW wrote: post #89
easytiger wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will you feel the same way when the EU seeks the end of veto powers (as is currently happening)? https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/european-parliament-a...

Not OP but also Dutch. Yes I would definitely like the EU to abolish veto powers and move to a majority rule. Europeans are too divided and need to band together to form a realistic opposition to the US and China. Veto rule is no way to govern a large group, since you only have to bribe a single member to cripple the whole. This has been known since at least the ancient Greek citystate era.

I think this is concerning and a misunderstanding of human and geopolitical behaviour.

Once some of the EUs more insane policies are forced on countries the desire to leave will spread.

> Veto rule is no way to govern a large group, since you only have to bribe a single member to cripple the whole.

Are you saying there is a corruption issue right now?

With majority rule (size TBD) a handful of countries will ride roughshod over others. Enjoy centrally set tax rates

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#328

Post by onion2k »

smcl wrote: post #30
carnitine wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d say post-Brexit England has drifted away from the far right. The whole EDL/Britain First/UKIP sentiment has only waned massively since then. The ruling government has not come close to far right at any point.

Perhaps the fringe far-right parties have all but disintegrated, but the Tories have certainly drifted rightward and they're essentially untouchable in England in spite of ... well, everything

Exactly. People stopped voting for UKIP when the Tories took on UKIP's 'policies'.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#329

Post by throwaway0x7E6 »

cjrp wrote: post #251
mantas wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark's left-wing government is planning to send away asylum seekers too. It's interesting times when protecting borders from illegal immigration is seen as „far right“. It's not „far right“ rising, it's some people pushing Overton window extremely to the left. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwan...

> protecting borders from illegal immigration Asylum-seeking is not illegal immigration.

right, and they're going back once the situation in their home country stabilizes, correct?

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#330

Post by mantas »

scott_w wrote: post #262
mantas wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is dealing with illegal migration under coverage of refugees „far right“?

When it’s refugees legally seeking help? This policy has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

Because nowadays vast majoritie of „refugees“ are not refugees in a classic sense.

E.g. my country had thousands of „refugees“ hoping over border from Belarus last year. Last time I saw statistics, not even 1% was eligible for „refugee“ status. Even skipping the part that, according to international law, refugee is legit for the first safe country.

Post reply on HN