As a public service, I thought I'd try to assist yet another befuddled journalist - this time Stephen Moss of the Guardian - with his list of fiendishly difficult questions about the independence referendum...
"I dislike nationalist politics and hope the Scots give a resounding no to the question of seceding from the union. That vote will be fraught with difficulty. Who will be the electorate?"
The people of Scotland.
"Will it just be the 5.2 million people in Scotland, which includes half a million people born in England and plenty from elsewhere?"
Yes.
"Or will it include the 800,000 born in Scotland but living in England..?"
No.
"Who has the right to rule on the question of statehood?"
The residents of the territory in question, in line with the long-established principle of self-determination.
"Do people in the rest of the UK have the right to vote on whether Scotland should leave the union?"
No. See above.
"And if Scotland wants to leave, why not Wales or Cornwall or Northumbria?"
Absolutely, if they want to. But not if they don't.
"And what if the Orkneys and Shetlands want to express their own very different identities?"
They should be allowed to. Although I might have had more faith in your knowledge of those different identities if you hadn't made the classic schoolboy/weatherman error of referring to them as "the Orkneys" and "the Shetlands".
"A Breton or a Bavarian is every bit as proud of his or her regional identity as a Scot. Should they be given the right to secede?"
Yes, if they want to. I'm starting to feel like I'm repeating myself here.
"Should Basques and Catalans leave Spain?"
If they want to. (*Suppresses yawn*)
"Should the political absurdity that is Belgium break up?"
If either Wallonia or Flanders (or both) vote to become independent, then yes. If not, no.
Streuth, that was exhausting. After a grilling like that, explaining the Hegelian dialectic is going to be a walk in the park.
Perhaps we have a winner for the contest.
ReplyDeleteThis is perhaps the best response to a newspaper article I've ever seen, heh.
ReplyDeleteMight we simply rely on Chou En Lai's (I know it's not the right spelling) view of the french revolution that it's too early to know what it all means?
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, Scottish independence would probably stand more of a chance if the English and Welsh *did* get to vote on it too.
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, and because it's never been obvious to me what the parameters of self-determination should be, would you support an individual city's right to secede, as well? A street? A house?
Fergus said... "would you support an individual city's right to secede, as well? A street? A house? "
ReplyDeleteHow silly are your prepared to be you know that is just silly, it makes you look silly, why do that to your self?
Alex Salmond:
"My dearest wish is to see the countries of Scotland and England stand together as equals.
"There is a difference between partnership and subordination.
"The first encourages mutual respect. The second breeds resentment.
"So let me finish with the words of Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who addressed this parliament in 1706, before it was adjourned for three hundred years.
"He observed that: "All nations are dependent; the one upon the many." This much we know.
"But he warned that if "the greater must always swallow the lesser, " we are all diminished.
"His fears were realised in 1707.
"But the age of empires is over. Now we determine our own future based on our own needs. We know our worth and should take pride in it.
"So let us heed the words of Saltoun and:
"Go forward into the community of nations to lend our own, independent weight to the world."
I am 100% with Alex Salmond, if you create an unequal union in which one partner is subordinate then it breeds resentment. That resentment is expressing itself in the civic nationalism that has become the mainstream in Scottish politics. There are examples of that subordination that could fill pages of the WWW. Scotland needs to make her own way, without the interference of London. It really could not be easier to understand. When the Union happened in 1707, there were around 50 independent countries in the world now the are over 200.
Scotland wished to become one of them. no amount of post colonial, ah buts, what ifs, but buts, or spluttering indignation changes that, in fact it quickens the pace.
In 1707 Scotland had 20% of the population of the soon to be UK. Now it is barely 9%. Not a ringing endorsement for success in the union.
Scotland's economy has consistently lagged that of the UK. As has many of our social indicators such as health, with the lowest life expectancy in the EU in some poor areas. Not a ringing endorsement.
Scotland is so much better than we have been allowed to be, it is within our reach and power to become the nation we should have been now, and we will.
James - any chance of an RSS feed on your blog for non-Googlers?
ReplyDeleteHilarious, James.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, when you have a minute, you could pop over to Richard Baker's place and give him a very basic primer on economics?
You could maybe start with the difference between £2,500,000 and £500,000,000.
and not a single citiation was given. Worth of the title blog, but no more.
ReplyDeleteIn particular:
he people of Scotland.
"Will it just be the 5.2 million people in Scotland, which includes half a million people born in England and plenty from elsewhere?"
Yes.
"Or will it include the 800,000 born in Scotland but living in England..?"
No.
"Who has the right to rule on the question of statehood?"
Does it include EU born folk that live in Scotland? But instead of reseach, you filled the void with more rabble.
Did Stephen Moss get paid for writing such honk?
ReplyDeleteTam : I must admit I'm a complete ignoramus on the distinction between different kinds of feeds, but I think I sort of 'consolidated' them when I joined Feedburner. So perhaps the address that the 'Atom' option links to?
ReplyDeleteAnon 1 : On the relatively narrow issue of citizens of other EU countries who reside in Scotland having the right to vote in the referendum, there is admittedly a legitimate question to be asked, because if the Holyrood/local government register is used they would be able to vote, and if the Westminster register is used they wouldn't. But it seems highly likely that a referendum organised by Holyrood would use the Holyrood register. In any case, this is fairly peripheral to the points Stephen Moss was raising.