Brief thoughts on why Scotland should opt for Independence
Said Cameron,
“Speaking before a trip to Edinburgh, the prime minister talked in passionate language about his desire to keep the union and insisted he wanted to make a positive case for keeping Scotland in the UK. However, his list of issues raised – including Scotland losing its seat (as part of the UK) on the United Nations security council – could be seen by opponents as an attempt to threaten voters into shunning independence in the planned referendum.
He said: "We're stronger, because together we count for more in the world, with a permanent seat on the UN security council, real clout in Nato and Europe, and unique influence with allies all over the world.” - the guardian
Scotland only needs the UK because the UK still includes the rest of non-England. Something like a skinny scrawny lad being only as strong as the toughies he is supported by.What i was wondering, when i came across this statement by Cameron is, is it that Scotland is stronger because, with Scotland being a part of the UK, it is represented in the UN Security Council, or is England stronger because the UK includes Scotland. What clout is the UK going to have if n.Ireland, Wales, and Scotland were to vote for independence mate.
It seems to me that when you take this into consideration, Scotland only needs the UK because it still includes the rest of non-England. Something like a skinny scrawny lad being only as strong as the toughies he is supported by. And anyway, how much clout does Scotland have on the Security Council. Or is Scotland to just be happy that it is being represented without its views being truly influential. Something like fans of soccer teams getting a kick out ‘their club’ winning this or that match without actually having even touched the ball.
It seems to me that when you take this into consideration, Scotland only needs the UK because it still includes the rest of non-England. Something like a skinny scrawny lad being only as strong as the toughies he is supported by. And anyway, how much clout does Scotland have on the Security Council. Or is Scotland to just be happy that it is being represented without its views being truly influential. Something like fans of soccer teams getting a kick out ‘their club’ winning this or that match without actually having even touched the ball.
If Cameron wants Scotland to stay in the union, then do what Gandhi did, offer the prime ministership to a Scot, preferably from the party that wants independence. If not, i’d go with ‘partition’.
As long as the capitalist and fascist status quo, continues reinforced by the Liberal-Con coalition’s efforts to re-Christianise the EU, amongst others, i’d say that Scotland stands to be sucked into this growing evil.
And as for not having the support of the British Armed Forces. That’s silly. Do you actually think that the rest of the UK is going to stand by and watch other powers take over Scotland? Of course not. The Brits won’t want another power at their border would they. So, out of self-interest, the Brits would certainly not allow that to be the case. So you don’t need to be in the UK to enjoy the protection of the British Armed Forces because they would want to protect British interests by not allowing other powers to take over Scotland. So Cameron is just talking through his arse on this one.
Rather than have Scotland’s development be dictated by the English, i’d rather Scotland have its independence, consider alternative courses of self development, make the most of its cultural attributes, and then maybe later, consider a union with England along the lines of the EU. A British Union or something like that.
In a nutshell, i’d rather have Scotland leave the union and join it again at some future date independently as opposed to staying in because they were forced to be in it a long while back, and then got used to it over time to the present. That just justifies any power to annex any state because they can always rely on the state to eventually get used to it because of the ‘shared heritage’ they’ve had ever since, and the people of the annexed state being underdeveloped enough, and having developed enough coping and compensatory strategies to find it more palatable. Basically, i'd rather Scotland join the union independently rather than staying in it after having been forced into it, and having gotten used to it. That might be a small step for Scotland, but it is quite the major one for humankind given the message it will be sending out by doing so....for the right reasons.
Go! Go! Scotland! FCUK!
ed
Hey Ed,
ReplyDelete//What an interesting perspective! I think a good alternative would be to establish a federation - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as individual federated states, with London as the main federal territory, within the UK, just like the US, India, or Malaysia etc, with an additional policy of allowing the head of the winning party in their respective states to take turn to be PM of the UK for one term. This would allow autonomous administration in almost all areas, except for foreign affairs and national defence, while each individual federated state having the freedom to ensure the maximal development of their own culture, as well as to allow the population in the UK to expose themselves to different perspectives from different cultures found within that country. This would ideally push multiculturalism to a new level. The separation should be used as a last resort if powers-that-be are not fully committed to such ideal.
//However, I guess Cameron would not go ahead with this proposal as this is going to challenge the capitalistic/Protestant status quo. It seems that the Holyrood contributes more to the Westminster in monetary terms than that of Westminster to Holyrood. It also seems that the populace in England aren't speaking up enough to promote enfranchisement in every state. Afterall, the English have validated the notion that the direct rule from Westminster is unquestionable, without devolution of the power to England. Hence, we could see why the populace is getting more "practical", not too different from people in the US. So in this context, it would be prudent for Scottish political entities to fight for independence so as to ensure maximal development of their culture on their own and not be incorporated into that insidious scheme of things as dictated by Lib-Con government. And also, I believe the populace from other states should have a say as to how they would like their region to be governed, together with Scotland. It'd be especially interesting to hear from the people in Northern Ireland, as the majority of the Protestant community are of Scottish descent - whether they prefer sticking with the Union with further devolution of power, or merge with Scotland if Scotland becomes independent, or merge with Republic of Ireland. And I also gather that some people in Wales aren't too happy with the arrangement from the Union, as their culture aren't afforded equal treatment as compared to that in England.
//The notion of "shared heritage" is just another "liberal humanist utopia" gibberish. Just like what many people are deluded to believe in "meritocratic" Singapore.
Hi Mark,
ReplyDeleteNo man. I don't think London should be the main federal capitol as that would give England more clout over the other regions. And given that London is the 'centre' of 'British civilisation', it would effect more assimilation pressures as people try to conform to the norms of that centre - all of this has been the case so far.
I do, however, like your idea of the head of the winning party of each state taking turns to be the PM of the UK, and that might go some way in bringing about some balance. However, it would be more of a political, rather than a cultural balance. Politicians, in the interests of the bourgeoisie they represent, aren't really going to interfere with established practices in the capitol so long as it rakes in the profits. Hence, this still keeps the centre 'English', and assimilation still carries on.
Hence, i would opt for separation first, and then joining up with the English at a later date. The English have been a major asshole when it comes to their colonial history. Before they robbed and pillaged the rest of the world - whom now cannot enter the UK because they are not a part of the 'white' European Union - they plundered and colonised the Irish and Scots. It was like a training ground where, upon graduation, they went and fucked the rest of the world - which is why i make no apologies for being here in the UK as my foreparents have earned the right through their investments, and which makes me part owner of this country. So fuck all those who want to keep this country white, and fuck Cameron for wanting to keep the UK 'Christian'. As for th Scottish, perhaps being screwed by the English also served to give them the training to go and screw the aboriginals of the state now known as the u.s. of a.
The point is, i want the history of colonisation, exploitation, and familiarisation with the colonialist to the point of being alright with part of some union, to end. Let the UK break up. Let the English Queen act the big shot with the English and keep her Ps and Qs, and her overprivileged kids to herself and the English to play kiss-ass with - i have to much self-respect to fall for that. Let others develop further without the glare of her crown, sceptre, and arrogant self-satisfied gaze - all of which were probably put together from the proceeds of plunder and greed anyway. (they say she's a nice lady. well ask her serve me a cup of tea and maybe i'll join in the belief (Gandhi did that with others) I want the other colonised states to have the imaginative space to think about what else they can become without whatever perspectival ceiling has been imposed by all this time under the English. I want every union to be validated, not by familiarity, but by conscience - that it is on just basis.
I'm all for fusion, but not at the expense of each culture not developing to its utmost. That way, each culture can contribute to the pool of cultural resources even more. I'm not saying that they should be insulated from each other. I'm saying that they should have enough room to develop independently first, whilst paying attention to each other, and not only develop that part of themselves that is deemed acceptable to the other. i.e. like the state of the malays and indians in singapore in the face of chinese self-absorption where the latter can only express that which the chinese are bothered about, or risk talking to oneself...which is not something that encourages them to be all that they can be. Same thing applies in the case of the Irish, Scots, and perhaps, the Welsh.