SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scottish nationals have two supra-national citizenships. One is UK citizenship, the second is EU citizenship. In democratic referenda over the past two years, Scots have voted clearly to retain both citizenships.
Unfortunately it is not possible to respect both democratic decisions of the Scottish people, due to a vote by other nationalities. So where you have democratic decisions which cannot both be implemented, which does democracy demand should take precedence?
It is not a simple question. The vote to retain EU citizenship was more recent and carried a much larger majority than the earlier vote. In addition it was made crystal clear during the campaign that it may require the overturning of the earlier vote. So on these grounds I believe the most recent vote must, as an exercise in democracy, have precedence.
In these circumstances the announcement by the First Minister that she is initiating the procedure on a new referendum for Scottish independence from the UK, in order to retain Scottish membership of the EU, is a sensible step.
Source: Craig Murray
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:11PM
Can someone explain to an American what the relationship is between Great Britain, Scotland, and Wales?
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:21PM
UK = United KingdomS
United Kingdoms are
Great Britain
Wales
Scotland
Each are equal states of common "super" kingdom.
Another leasons...
All of countries are states except in US (united States). we screwed with this so we use countries instead of states since the original US states formed a central federal goverment.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:43PM
Here's a slighly oversimplified definition:
- {England, Scotland, Wales} = Great Britain = the big island
- {Great Britain + Northern Ireland} = United Kingdom, i.e., including part of the next island over. These four regions are roughly equivalent to U.S. states, and have varying degrees of internal independence. The United Kingdom is the entity that is a member of the EU, and that voted on the Brexit.
- {United Kingdom + countries of former British Empire} = Commonwealth, where the Queen is the ceremonial Head of State, but each country has governmental independence.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:03PM
The way I keep it straight in my mind:
United States(of America) as a 'nation state', the rest of the world has countries as 'nation states'
*glass half empty-glass half full-same difference to me*
We(USA) tend to play word games to seem the exception to the rest of the world, when actual differences already exist.
It is obvious to me that the USA is a nation state, as evidenced by a central Federal government, much less a State Department.
I heard recently that Texas is making noise about seceding from the USA, yet again. I say let them go, this time. (Trump can build a lot of his Wall at the Texas border instead of Mexico, and make Texas pay for it) ;-)
I think Texas would find it's sovereign garden not as rosy as expected...(regardless of the Trump clown)
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:42PM
Duncan Black put it well. He describes a conversation between the newly sovereign Texas and Uncle Sam:
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:03PM
The way I keep it straight in my mind: United States(of America) as a 'nation state', the rest of the world has countries as 'nation states' *glass half empty-glass half full-same difference to me*
We(USA) tend to play word games to seem the exception to the rest of the world, when actual differences already exist.
A little history would shed light on this. The US didn't start as the US at the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, but rather a collection of 13 embryonic nation states with a crude supernational organization (the Continental Congress) that realized they couldn't stand independently to the UK or other European powers. They really were states per the usual non-US definition. But of course, this has to be some ego trip of the US not natural evolution of language over time.
I heard recently that Texas is making noise about seceding from the USA, yet again. I say let them go, this time. (Trump can build a lot of his Wall at the Texas border instead of Mexico, and make Texas pay for it) ;-) I think Texas would find it's sovereign garden not as rosy as expected...(regardless of the Trump clown)
This is that typically dysfunctional collectivist entitlement when faced with people who wish to leave a collective group. We'll fuck them over and show them how much they need us! Well, there's a reason that people don't want to belong and you're a big part of it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rleigh on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:41PM
Er, no. Great Britain, Britannia, is the name of the *island*. England, Wales and Scotland are the countries on the island. Together with Northern Ireland, these comprise the sovereign state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:31PM
Scotland and Wales are conquered colonies of England. Together with England they form the island of Great Britain. Then the UK is GB plus northern Ireland, another conquered vessel of England.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:23PM
I did give you the insightful mod, but to clarify and have a little rant...
It really depends on what lens you view history though. The UK public in general - in my opinion - has never really come to terms with the empire, and the significance of the unique structure of the UK. 'Britain established societies around the world and gave them their independence when they asked.' is the default reaction. Scotland, NI and Wales are willing participants in all of this for a long time now, they get their chances to leave and we'd make them suffer for it.
There are so many levels to Britain/UK that no other sovereign state really has, although there are similar situations that come to mind. China/Hong Kong/Macau ... USA/Peurto Rico/USVI/etc ... There are elements of other european empires in the caribbean in places like Sint Maarten/Saint-Martin.
The UK voted out of the EU, but not all of the UK was affected by the vote or had a vote. Jersey is a 'dependency' of the UK and has a 'special relationship with the EU' as an example. BVI is not part of the EU, but all BVI residents are EU citizens as another example...
These places are likely to become very expensive to maintain if the UK no longer becomes an easy entry point from outside and into the EU, holding £ to avoid euro exposure while having full access to a much larger market... The credibility and functionality of UK based businesses, even if they're owned offshore.
Middle England voted with their hearts, and I respect their decision. It is not the wrong one. The UK is not as important as it used to be, and the public is perhaps forcing the political establishment's hand in taking a step down. The idea the UK has some leverage over larger economies after taking the ball and going home is laughable. The idea that the EU wouldn't do to the UK what the UK promised to to do Scotland, make life as difficult as possible.
London will survive, the city will go on. The rest of the country however, must wait their turn in the central bank's game of russian roulette. The trickle-down may stop entirely.
This might all end up well in the end, the public gets what they want. An England free from bureaucrats with funny accents. Scotland in the EU. A reunified Ireland. Wales.... winning the rugby? The territories of course getting that tourist and financial services £$.
The Brexit vote is the first step on a very long road in already uncertain times, the battle for democratic representation of the general public hasn't been won, it's only just started.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:30PM
The UK was the second largest economy inside the EU, and of the five major EU economies (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain), only Germany and the UK had decent employment statistics. That leaves Germany and the ailing France, Italy, and Spain to try to prop up France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal, etc. Employment is the elephant in the room that the EU doesn't like to talk about, but it's at the root of many other problems such as migration and racism: people get along much better when they all have jobs and something profitable to do with their time. Unfortunately, the EU never seems capable of seeing its economic problems as employment problems at a human scale, but only as debt problems at a national scale. I suspect that won't change, which means that the EU's employment problems will fester. The UK seems more willing to focus on job creation and loss (much of the discussion over Brexit was about the possibility of job loss), so they might end up with a more stable society. The EU, however, without UK's economic input, will be shorthanded, and the Germans will feel much more tension between their desire to conserve their national wealth and their neighbors' desire for bailouts and fiscal transfer. The French are already paralyzed by their own internal problems (labor reform, unemployment). I suspect Brexit will end up hurting EU stability much more than the UK.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:22PM
While what you are saying looks correct, you are ignoring that the cause isn't really government, but gradually increasing automation. And it's happening all over the world. This is a part of why Trump has been so successful as a popular candidate. And it's not only happening in the US and Britain. It's probably a part of what makes ISIS so "popular"...though that may be more driven by droughts.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:37PM
That might upset the USA though which is having their dollar supported by Saudi Arabia and many other oil producing countries.
But it's like your neighbour buying your money to buy oil and burn up that oil every day. In short people buying your money and burning it. Helps keep you rich doesn't it?
And if more people use your currency to buy and sell stuff, whenever you print your money you are taxing everyone with positive amounts of your currency.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:29AM
While what you are saying looks correct, you are ignoring that the cause isn't really government, but gradually increasing automation.
Automation hasn't worked that way before and still doesn't work that way in the developing world. Sure, plenty of jobs are destroyed. But in a healthy economy that doesn't punish its employers, jobs are also created.
And it's happening all over the world. This is a part of why Trump has been so successful as a popular candidate.
There's always some cute rationalization for the ugly. The problem isn't that the jobs went away due to automation. The problem is that the people in power, as far as they have clue, don't care. Successful populists know what buttons to push.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:08PM
Like much of the press coverage, your little rant is far too breathless.
Nothing has changed on the ground.
The UK donated far more money to the EU than they ever got back in any form whatsoever. The current market tantrum is just a pissing contest by EU proponents swilling their scotch and proclaiming "we'll show those bastards who's boss".
But UK industries are on sale right now for something in excess of a 10% discount, and only SJW money would avoid that bargain.
I agree there will be a realignment, but it doesn't stop at the UK's shoreline.
There is serious discussion in at least three EU countries of their own Exit votes, and if the UK successfully fights off the EU's attempt to flush their (UK's) economy down the crapper, then these demands for exit votes will only grow stronger. I expect to see at least ONE more exit votes succeed, and probably 2.
The EU probably needs a reboot - it seems to be infected with a systemd-like virus.
In the mean time, Britain, Scotland, Wales, (and maybe NI, or even Ireland) should probably think of renegotiating their relationship among themselves (if the British can ever swallow their pride) to something along Canadian or Australian lines. After all, the islands aren't going to move.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:46PM
I did say it was a little rant. And nothing has changed on the ground because it's only been 1 business day since the result and the government already kicked the can down the road until October.
I have skin in the game, i'm based in the UK but nearly all business i'm involved in has connections across the world, very little if any is based around internal investment, and those that are UK based entirely, are bracing for a storm and cutting costs. Just because 60% of my business comes from outside the EU doesn't mean i'm looking forward to a 20% cut on-top of the currency devaluation and increased costs to trade in that market.
Where i'm sitting, this is not good. The industries i'm involved in have been cost cutting regardless of where the funding is from, margins are being squeezed in the stagnant economy with only low energy costs keeping a lid on things. I know investment has been withheld because they were waiting on the outcome. The outcome is not something people around London were really hoping for. My concern is whatever happens, the general population are the one's who will lose out.
As I said, it could all end up great. But while construction projects stall and investors are nervous, waiting to see if the EU dissolves or not and what kind of access the UK will have. The coming months to years are far from certain, could be good, could be bad.
But the banks and the landlords are not going to wait on payments while things work themselves out and the foreign money decides the UK is still a safe haven.
This is not based on what i've read in the papers or heard from the politicians, this is based on my own experiences as a small business owner and discussions with people who make investment decisions.
Will all this make the £18bn EDF Hinkley Point project any cheaper?
(Score: 1) by Pax on Thursday July 07 2016, @06:21PM
Really? then explain the riots when the act of the union was passed? they happened in Edinburgh,Glasgow,ayr,Paisley, Kirckaldy, Dunfermline,Aberdeen,Dumfries .. which is to say.. all over Scotland.. then there were the Jacobite rebellions... oh and the 1820 radical risings and more..... to say Scotland went willingly into the union of the parliaments if a stretch at best and disingenuous at worst.
Into the union of the crowns.. yes.. that was King James... however even with the union of the parliaments , Scotland still retains it's own separate and distinct legal system.. still a country but without sovereign status.. this was not wanted by the populace however after the Darrien scheme's failure partly due to shit choice of trading goods and mainly down the English privateers(govt approved pirated who gave a commission back to the crown of their plundered goods) ,Scotland's lords,barons.. land owners were kinda low on funds, and as they served as the parliamentarians.. open to bribery.. which happened and is well documented.
The towns and burghs weren't that badly off financially but the landowners sold out for greed or in the words immortalised by Scotland's national bard... Robert burns "we were bought and sold for English gold, Such a parcel of rouges in a nation"
attitudes like that are part of why we want to fuck off to be quite frank.
(Score: 4, Informative) by rleigh on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:13PM
Scotland was not conquered by England. In fact, the original attempt at uniting the kingdoms was by James VI of Scotland when he also became James I of England and ruled both kingdoms, so could even be regarded as being initiated the other way around. While the history in the following century is messy, the acts of union were negotiated and passed a century later, without any armed conquest (but was not a popular change). It was temporarily unified under Cromwell by force, but there was much discussion of Union in both English and Scottish parliaments over the 16th century. There were of course the Jacobite rebellions, but these happened in all of Britain and Ireland and were more about restoring Charles to the throne and about Catholic and Protestant sectarianism than there were about unification. Put it this way, had history been different and had Charles been restored to the thrones of both Scotland and England, would he have also persued unification? I'd think it likely--it wasn't a new idea and it had already been attempted on several occasions by that point. Union wasn't an act of conquest, it was something that was discussed and attempted for over a century before the actual Acts of Union were negotiated and signed into law by mutual consent, and the Scottish lairds were responsible for that (being broke and needing a bailout also played a part).
While I think it's fair to say that Scotland got the poorer side of the deal out of the Union in terms of it being an unequal distribution of power and wealth, which has continued to this day along with a continued strong desire for independence by many, I don't think it's fair to characterise it as being a conquest by England--the lairds did very well out of it and retained most of their power and independence as part of the United Kingdom, and many Scottish politicians have played very prominent roles in British politics ever since.
Maybe we'll have another independence referendum at some point; I had the privilege to vote in the last one. Reading the original article and the comments, there's a good amount of interesting thoughts in there. But the one that resonates most with me is that achieving independence from the UK only to be a vassal of the EU and the Euro is unlikely to result in meaningful independence. Given the choice of which is more important, association with the rest of the UK or association with the EU, for me that choice is with the rest of the UK. Had the previous referendum resulted in an independent Scotland using the Euro, the Scottish economy could quite easily have turned into the next Greece or Ireland, bankrupt and forced to act against the wellbeing of its own citizens; the state of the EU and eurozone is not at all good, and a small state could easily end up in awful trouble due to the inherent and systemic economic imbalances. I can't see my opinion of that changing unless there are some serious changes to rebalance things to let the economies of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. recover and prosper, and that is unlikely to ever happen while the current system benefits Germany, which is basically while a common currency is in use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707 [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by helel on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:32PM
CGP Grey has a video explaining the breakdown of the UK if you have a few minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10 [youtube.com]
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:39PM
England: The single country of England.
Great Britain: The common land mass of England, Scotland and Wales.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (AKA "The UK"): the combination of all four counties; England, Scotland, Wales *and* Northern Island.
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have their own regional government, which have varying degrees of autonomy over decision making and budgets, but all are beholden to the central government in London, England, which sets laws for the entire UK and also manages the specific affairs that only apply to England. There is also a process underway to divest more power from London to major urban centres in England, such as Manchester, allowing them a greater degree of autonomy over regional budgets but not legislation.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Dunbal on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:24PM
The relationship with Wales and Northern Ireland is one of conquest. Wales was pretty much subjugated and broken by William the Conqueror and his line in the 11th century. While the Welsh retain their national prestige and culture, they do not have an independent government (rather a "National Assembly") and conducted guerilla warfare against the English for many years. Likewise with Ireland - it was repeatedly invaded and conquered by many English kings but the Irish proved to be quite stubborn resulting in revolt the minute the English Army left to fight elsewhere (or simply ran out of funding). Henry VIII was finally declared King of Ireland, but you have to remember this historical period was a time of massive intrigue between Spain, France and England. The Irish have always resented English rule and were quite open to foreign aid to encourage revolt. Over time you end up with England hanging on to a tiny chunk of land called Northern Ireland with the rest of the island reverting back to independence and local rule. The Scottish are the only ones who quite willingly joined with England in 1707 after years and years of bloodshed (the Scots being the ones doing most of the bleeding in later years because of superior English numbers, technology and firepower resulting in repeated massacres). They gave up their autonomy in foreign affairs to the United Kingdom while retaining a local government structure and limited local autonomy. Scotland itself has traditionally been divided between the "Lowland Scots" and the "Highland Scots". The latter view the former as ancient traitors who often take the side of the English at the drop of a hat. North of Edinburgh many Scots still retain their Gaelic speech, although all speak English usually with a heavy accent.
Today the issue is pretty much one of political manipulation, like the French Canadian separatists in Canada. Threatening separation creates political division, which can be exploited for political power. This has been copied all over the world more recently in Catalunia, Spain, and Scotland. The Irish have always resented English control of Northern Ireland. What the politicians often base their campaigns to create this division on is the fact that these geographical areas are usually resource rich and exploited by the other governments. This gives them the idea that they could exist as independent entities. French Canadians, for example, feel that the rest of Canada would collapse without Quebec. Likewise with the Scots who feel that England basically rapes their country for profits while handing Scotland a mere pittance in infrastructure investments. Of course these are only political statements made for political gain. Reality is far more complex. Nothing stops Scots from fully participating in English affairs and profit - for example several recent British Prime Ministers have been Scots - for example Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh. This is the bit they forget - Scots also have full participation in any and all UK affairs. However the politicians focus on local issues to divide the country and create a power-base.
Oh, and I am both French Canadian (born in Montreal) AND Scottish (my mother was born in Aberdeen) and I am a British dual citizen. That is one hell of an explosive mix - bagpipes and maple syrup :) But I feel qualified to talk about this. At least to an American :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:41PM
in the last paragraph, replace Scotland by UK and UK by EU and you have almost the same description... just add also the emigration, but that is due London being rich and a magnet to attract poor people trying to change their life. Leaving the EU will not truly fix that, no matter what nationalists say, unless London stop being rich... but i suspect that this may be a undesired goal
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:44PM
No it's not the same, because an Englishman cannot become President of Bulgaria.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:22PM
But I feel qualified to talk about this. At least to an American :P
Ach, you'll be needing pictures then... :)
Scotland itself has traditionally been divided between the "Lowland Scots" and the "Highland Scots". The latter view the former as ancient traitors who often take the side of the English at the drop of a hat. North of Edinburgh many Scots still retain their Gaelic speech, although all speak English usually with a heavy accent.
Not quite correct, it's a lot more nuanced than that, for example, to a "Highland Scot" (native Gaelic speaker, Gael, aka Teuchter) I'm a "Lowland Scot" (no Gaelic).
However, my family are of highland extraction, moved to the central belt several generations ago, and lost the Gaelic, so, to me, a Lowlander is from a bit further south than my location, but not so far south that it makes them from the Borders..them's a mad, bad, cursed [hiskingdomprophecy.com] lot.
To the direct North of Edinburgh, you have the Fifers, for your amusement, see this [thecourier.co.uk] regarding Gaelic in Fife, so, not really Gaels.. they're more to be found in the West-North West.
Let's not forget the general East Coast-West Coast divide, the North East-South East divide, the Fife-Rest of the universe divide, the Broughty Ferry (centre of, and all of the known Universe) or the Anglo-Saxon enclaves of the south east, the Norse nature of some of the Western Isles, Orkney and the Shetlands, though they're not as Norse as they'd like to think, an an example re the Orkneys, see here [bbc.co.uk]..and again, have a look at this [scotsman.com], the whole thing is quite an interesting mess, depending on how 'granular' you want to be, I could be here all night...
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:04PM
Oh, and Glasgow, which is all alone :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:54PM
Oh, and Glasgow, which is all alone :)
Ah, we do not talk about the 'G' place...like the 'E' place on the other coast we ignore them in the hope that one day they Oozlum..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:36PM
There's a reason it was called auld reekie...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:29PM
Can someone explain to an American what the relationship is between Great Britain, Scotland, and Wales?
...and further to the other responses:
Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland are all subject to the UK Parliament in London (in which they are all represented) but quite substantial powers [parliament.scot] have been "devolved" to the regional Parliaments/Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.
The Scottish parliament is currently dominated by the Scottish Nationalist Party.
The SNP technically lost the Scottish Independence referendum a couple of years ago but, in practice, won increased powers for the Scottish parliament and enjoyed a massive surge in popularity & membership.
At the last general election, the SNP also won most of the Scottish seats in the UK Parliament, making them the third largest party, which has never happened before. The ruling Conservative party only have a small majority - so if they are less-than-unanimous* on any vote then the SNP becomes significant. The Labour party opposition, who usually have a lot of Scottish MPs, were virtually driven out of Scotland at the last election, so they're dependent on the SNP in any vote - although Labour and SNP are pretty close politically on everything bar independence.
*Since the Conservative party are less-than-unanimous on Brexit (candidate for understatement of the year) then any vote to implement Brexit is going to be popcorn time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2016, @07:32PM
pls don't admit you're american, it's embarassing.