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

441–450 of 745 posts

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#441

Post by smcl »

eyko wrote: post #146
smcl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly I'd agree that there's not a significant far left political party in Scotland (Scottish Greens, perhaps?) but it is still more left-leaning overall. But re the "nationalist" bit - that word is overloaded. So the word usually means a couple of things: 1. "far-right beliefs that centre on religious and ethnic hatred" 2. or, "a desire to become an independent nation" In this case when people say the SNP is natio…

Nationalism in the context of SNP (and as a concept in general) simply refers to the desire/belief that the state and nation should be synonymous. The problem is that not everyone's interpretation of national identity is the same, so the in the end all you get is populism used to push a belief. The answer to the question "What is Scotland, anyway?" is not as clear as politicians would like it to be.

Ok but in real-world usage "nationalist = far right = nazis = bad". So I was clarifying that while that is not untrue, nobody is saying the Scottish independence movement or the SNP are that.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#442

Post by gadders »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #357
temp8964 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s your reasonable definition of far-right?

There's a saying about the UK's far right parties (the likes of UKIP, National Front (1) etc) that in the long run it's not a winning proposition, as the Tories can always adopt the same rhetoric, and they always have better suits. This has indeed happened. 1) https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/old-poster-sparks...

UKIP is not far-right. You can't just label anyone you disagree with as "Far Right". You have to base your argument on facts.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#443

Post by jpkeisala »

curiousgal wrote: post #315
k_sze wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the Brexit debacle, I joked with my Scottish ex-boss that, one day, Scotland will leave the UK, rejoin the EU, and then reabsorb the UK. And then the UK will be renamed United Kingdom of Scotland instead of United Kingdom of Great Britain. He laughed.

Will/Would the EU accept Scotland's membership though? What about the currency? It all seems so complicated

It would be very popular move for every EU politician to fast track Scotland to EU. But yes, it would be complicated to separate from UK and become independent. Becoming EU member would not be that complicated.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#444

Post by tialaramex »

gambiting wrote: post #256
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...

I don't think even the most fundamental left leaning people are against sending illegal immigrants away - the problem is that UK is choosing to send people away to Rwanda, basically telling them that it's a safe African country, good luck there. Ministers have confirmed that yeah, it's "possible" that for instance Ukrainian refugees could be sent there if they didn't follow the right procedures and are deemed "illega…

The UK can't send asylum seekers to Australia because Australia is a sovereign entity and wouldn't accept them. Indeed Australia already has anti-asylum policies locally, and these influenced the model for the UK's decision.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#445

Post by brigandish »

rootusrootus wrote: post #377
dale_glass wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's silly. I have no dog in this fight, but people are allowed to change their opinion, especially as circumstances change. If what your choice was based on changed, then it's perfectly logical for your choice to change in response. Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with.

> Holding up to "once in a generation" promises is stupid, though so was making such a claim to start with. It's not a bad way to try and skip a generation that seems to be skewing left, however, and keep power in the hands of the boomer generation. "Sorry, kids, I know you weren't old enough to vote for this before, but we agreed that we wouldn't do it again for a generation."

Would those kids not get a vote in 20 years? Those who are young tend to skew left anyway. As a Danish friend once told me "If you're young and you don't vote left, you have no heart. If you're old and you don't vote right, you have no brains."

Ever was it thus.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#446

Post by gadders »

afavour wrote: post #2

As a Brit that didn’t want Scotland to be independent last time around: good luck to them. Brexit has shown very clearly that Scotland wants to chart a different path to England and IMO they should be allowed to do it. …just be generous to English folks seeking asylum from Tory rule, yeah?

I can't help thinking there is a certain tension between wanting to be an independent country, and then also wanting to join the EU and give up your currency. Most of the new powers you would gain under independence would be given away again.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#447

Post by dubeye »

petesergeant wrote: post #417
dubeye wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also with westminsters powers to just ignore SNP requests for a ref. But at some point, if UK wants to maintain it's pretence of being a defender of sovreignty and democracy, then it will need to allow scotland to hold a second referendum on terms of it's own devising. Not westminsters.

I think the UK can easily maintain this by saying "once every 25 years seems reasonable", and nobody internationally will bat an eyelid.

What is reasonable depends on context. If 80% of scottish voters argue 15 years (for eg) is reasonable, what makes Westminsters 25 number more reasonable?

I would agree 10 years is pushing it .

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#448

Post by randomsearch »

chillydawg wrote: post #42

One quite important issue is the border. English and Scottish people will almost certainly never tolerate any kind of friction at that border. We've been moving across it seamlessly for centuries, families are mixed, businesses straddle the border, etc. If the Northern Ireland debacle has shown us anything, it's if Scotland were to leave and then join the EU that border would become an absolute political nightmare. T…

There would be a hard border, which would become relatively efficient over time but cause real disruption. The use of the Euro in Scotland would cause friction for trade. More and more Scottish imports would come from Europe instead. England would continue to import from Scotland as it has no attractive alternative.

Realistically there are only two paths forward for England anyway: either the EU will fail completely, or England will eventually be forced to rejoin. So the border will only be temporary.

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#449

Post by zwirbl »

inglor_cz wrote: post #83
pojzon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is going to get introduced because nations like Hungary, led by oil oligarchs connected to Russia, want to fk over whole EU for their personal gain. You should work towards stronger union not weaken it.

I am a Czech citizen and a mild Euroskeptic. I definitely do not want the EU to become stronger than it already is. We have had enough experience where obsession with "more power" leads, and I do not want to see this scenario replayed again in slightly different conditions. What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country.

> What I value about current EU is precisely that it cannot just squash dissent by force, even from a single country.

And this often means that the EU can't get anything done on an EU wide level

Re: Scotland starts renewed case for independence

#450

Post by mensetmanusman »

DocTomoe wrote: post #249
atlasunshrugged wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the EU need to form a realistic opposition to the U.S.?

Because we have learned the US to be an unreliable partner and a source for most of our problems, several times now. It's time to stand on our own feet.

The US subsidizing defense spending has allowed the EU to vastly expand social welfare spending on healthcare and education.

Those $100B in arms Germany is about to purchase will be that much less spending on social programs.

Post reply on HN