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, 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]