SCOTCH MYTHS
Myth No 1 – Scotland Would Lose All Global Influence Under Independence
Myth No 2 – Scotland Needs to Be Part of the UK Economy
Myth No 3 – The Majority of Scots Want Devo Max
Myth No 4 – Scotland Needs to Be Armed to the Teeth to be a Proper Country
Speechless. The myths leave me speechless.
1. We usually do not want to interfere forcefully or unfairly in our neighbours lives (so why would we want to be a global power?),
2. We run our own households, councils and Scots government finances successfully don’t we? (so should also be able to run a larger economy).
3. The majority of Scots want to run their own lives themselves (so why would we want to have someone oversee that aka devo max)
4. Scots normally do not go about armed to the teeth ready to kill all and sundry, nor do we normally let our children sell weapons to others so why would Scots want or need our country need to be armed to the teeth.
We are a proper country already and have been for hundreds of years. It is time to remove the interference that has hampered our lives for most of that history.
1. Scotland, for centuries a force for good around the world as part of the UK, would become isolated independently. When was the last time Iceland or Ireland or Belgium did something impressive in the world?
2. The logic that because we run something small we can therefore run something big is flawed.
3. Independence will not lead to Scots running their lives themselves, there will be a government like there is now.
4. Where there is injustice in the world, Scotland will stand by and let it continue. Maybe some Scots are happy to be narrow-minded, inward-looking and isolationist but I’m not.
Scottish independence relies on myths of Scotland as a ‘nation’. All nations have been constructed. What about Pict nationalism or Wessex nationalism or Northumbrian nationalism – all valid if you go back far enough.
Proud to be Scottish and proud to be British – woe betide anyone who dares to suggest that I cannot be both.
“woe betide” yourself ya dickhead!
1. Something impressive? Oh! you mean like invading Iraq or creating concentration camps or wiping out the entire indigenous population of Tasmania!
Yep! you truly are a dick head!
Incredible mind set from someone determined to belittle his own country… Although clearly he fancies his southern neighbour a lot more.
1 and 2 Speaking of flawed logic, how does it follow that as a sovereign nation we’d become isolated? The UK a force for good? Try selling that lie to the Irish, Singalese, Australian aboriginals, Yemenis, South African victims of British concentration camps I could go on as I’m sure you know. Your flag isn’t known as the butcher’s apron for nothing.
3 Aye, well spotted, we’ll still have a government; one that’s elected by the majority of Scots and accountable to the people.
4 You don’t have to be a large nation to help other countries around the world; Switzerland and the Nordic nations do quite well for example. However, usually, you do have to have an inflated idea of your own importance and an aggressive foreign policy to start an illegal war and throw your ever diminishing weight around in countries where you are not welcome. Britain’s meddling, incompetence and aggression have made it enemies the world over.
So Fraser, you didn’t think to read the articles first, then?
If you truly believe those four statements you make, then you clearly need to read up a bit about how other nations survive and prosper. It’s amazing that the people who accuse nationalists of being narrow-minded, inward-looking and isolationist are always the same ones who mock other countries without even a cursory glance at what they’ve achieved. When did Iceland do something impressive? They’re doing it right now, with their radical approach to rewriting their constitution, as well as their recovery from the financial crisis by choosing to let banks accept the consequences of their actions, rather than propping them up to let them make the same mistakes over and over again. Those are two achievements the mighty UK have failed to mirror.
Besides, who cares about impressing others? Life is not a cock-measuring contest, but it is very telling when people make comments suggesting they think it is.
The British Union relies on myths and lies – there may have been a grain of truth in them between 1945 to 1948, but since then it has been pure bluster from the ‘Great British’ (meaning greater English) public schoolboys that have generally held power.
British+Scotish are either of the Wartime generation, or Anglais Manqué. The former have an excuse, the latter are beyond the pale.
Well put Fraser, a shame that some of the nationalists on this blog you will just get abuse slung at you. We need intelligent debate on this subject.
A fellow British Scot.
I’d actually started to believe that ‘Fraser Gillies’ was a fiction, a straw man for our debate. Even the most deluded unionists I’ve spoken to aren’t living in the childish fantasy world that ‘Fraser’ is. Are you for real gfaetheblock? I salute you for engaging in the debate but honestly, do you believe in the atrophy that is the British state? Please sell it to me.. Tell us all what advantages “Scotland reaps from this so called Union, that can counterbalance the annihilation of her independence”, the political will of the people and the economic reality of London rule? Can you at least admit to a shade of grey.. that the British state as we know it must change or face its end?
Any nation is in constant change, whether it is the change of governments and the whims and policy they bring with them through to the seismic, such as the break up of the USSR or the splitting of Sudan. Nrn Irn’s evolving government has been the most encouraging change that has reduced suffering and danger to part of our own country. I am not afraid of change, but I think the change has to be for the better, not just for the sake of it.
The idealist nationalists I understand, they believe Scotland must be an independent state. I don’t, but that is what makes the debate interesting. The idealists know that they have to convince the moderate that it makes sense and I am not hearing any compelling arguments other than it’s our oil therefore all our ills will be fixed. The debate needs to move to facts.
I support the union because i think it is the best for the economy of both Scotland and rump, we are stronger untied and with a diverse economy. The expense of speration will be significant, i don’t see what the benefit of this is. The UK is a fantastically diverse; racially, culturally and politically and simply feel part of it.
I think we should focus our efforts on getting the best deal for Scotland in the UK and increasing our influence in the UK set up, rather than having a long winded, divisive and expensive independence campaign that may or may not create change.
Not expecting to get much agreement to this, but that’s where is am at.
Newsflash!!! Under an independent state you would still be British, just not a UK citizen.
A force for good,
“You may travel through the length and breadth of Kitui Reserve and you will fail to find in it any enterprise, building, or structure of any sort which Government has provided at the cost of more than a few sovereigns for the direct benefit of the natives. The place was little better than a wilderness when I first knew it 25 years ago, and it remains a wilderness to-day as far as our efforts are concerned. If we left that district to-morrow the only permanent evidence of our occupation would be the buildings we have erected for the use of our tax-collecting staff.
—Chief Native Commissioner of Kenya, 1925
The opium wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
Famine and mass starvation
Condemning “humanitarian hysterics” during the worst Victorian famine, Lord Lytton ↑ said that the stoppage of his 1876 durbar “would be more disastrous to the permanent interests of the Empire than twenty famines”. Despite pleas from the secretary of state for India Leo Amery during the terrible 1943-44 Bengal famine, Churchill refused to divert scarce shipping to Calcutta. He thought that “the starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis” was less serious than that of sturdy Greeks, particularly as Indians would go on breeding “like rabbits”.
or this . As the author-explorer Winwood Reade ↑ wrote: “The law of murder is the law of growth.” Of course, as TH Huxley said, evolution could not invalidate morality. There could be no justification for the Tasmanian genocide or the slaughter of Australian aborigines. Yet as late as 1883 a colonial governor reported to Gladstone that refined Queenslanders talked approvingly “not only of the wholesale butchery (for the iniquity of that may sometimes be disguised from themselves) but of the individual murder of natives”. Similarly, 20th-century British officials approved punitive operations in the southern Sudan even though they produced a crop of “regular Congo atrocities” amounting almost to genocide.
or this
When crushing opposition in Ceylon in 1818, the British killed over 1% of the population. Thirty years later not a single European on the island perished in the only insurrection worthy of the name. But 200 alleged rebels were hanged or shot, and more were flogged or imprisoned. Governor Eyre’s reprisals after the Morant Bay uprising ↑ in Jamaica followed the same pattern. In the wake of their disastrous retreat from Kabul in 1842, the British meted out enough retributive homicide to earn the perpetual enmity of Afghanistan. Burma, Kenya and Iraq were subjugated with equal violence. After the Indian mutiny soldiers such as Garnet Wolseley ↑ did much to fulfil their vow to spill “barrels and barrels of the filth which flows in these niggers’ veins for every drop of blood” they had shed. During the South African war the British allowed a sixth of the Boer population, mostly children, to die in concentration camps.
Scotch Myths? Myths created under the influence of whisky? or do you mean Scots Myths Dude?
It’s a joke. A pun (dude).
Really? OK, if you say so…
Sorry about the dude bit, wasn’t being cheeky honest!
It’s a pun on the fact that we’re scotching myths, and also a play on the term Scotch Mist. Combine the two and you can draw all manner of metaphors.
I think it’s quite brilliant, far better than the title I originally gave the first one (Mythbusting). I’m quite jealous I didn’t come up with it myself, in fact!
Interestingly, I’ve noticed a few people (including the Herald) using the term “Scotching myths” recently. Collective consciousness, or just plain auld thievery? We’ll never know…
In the immortal words of Homer “Doh!”
A scholarly study of unionist techniques of lies and deception by audl aquaintance HERE
Of course Scotland will be better off when independent. We have natural resources in abundance. A well educated work force and have always punched above our weight.
Why do the rest want us in the UK? Because they need us. Independence will strengthen Scotland and weaken England.
I cannot wait!
The English public don’t particularly care about Scottish independence, some politicians do. Most of them believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are net contributors to Scotland via the tax system (and tend to ignore the revenues that have come from North Sea oil).
The Right are ambivalent because an independent Scotland puts them in charge of England for some time but goes against the imperial pretensions. It will cause a big swing to the right in the whole British political agenda. The good that Scotland does for the world by being in the UK may well be all the things that the UK might have done with a more right wing political agenda (But who knows, and I’m certain that is not what Unionists tend to have in mind when they talk about this issue.).
The Labour party wants Scotland to stay in the UK for the opposite reason. The
military want to keep Scotland in the UK for obvious reasons. But I think the reason there has been relatively little fuss about it is because there is no group in England that cares all that much. Otherwise, there would have had to been some real fighting to get the Scottish parliament in the first place.
I’m English and I live in Scotland, but I’m an internationalist first. Scottish independence may make Scotland a better place, for reasons other than cultural pride, but I really don’t have a clue if it will or it won’t. I doubt that anybody knows much better than 50:50 even though they’ll scream that they do. However, if most of the people in an area want to govern themselves independently then I’m inclined towards supporting that.
On the other hand, it would set a precedent for people in any region relatively rich in resources to claim independence. For example, in Bolivia we’ve seen an independence movement rise up in the gas rich region supported by the US government in reaction to the rise of a left wing government.
I just hope that Scottish independence doesn’t lead to a divisive nationalism which serves as a barrier to Solidarity between British and Scottish workers.
barrier to workers in England and Scotland realizing their common interests.
There are very many myths to be Scotched not least of which is the myth that Scotland is economically better off in this union of parliaments. I’m afraid I don’t know the age of any posters here but I can remember a Scotland that made ships the length of the Clyde, cars, had steel production, a belt of coal pits almost the width of the country, engineering firms that didn’t just make widgets for computers and a fishing fleet that dwarfed many in Europe. If this union is so economically safe for us as gfaetheblock insists, where is all this industry now? Remember all of this was lost before there was a Scottish Parliament, so who was in charge of this dismantling of Scottish industry?
It is worth looking here for an answer. Let me know what you think. UK industry crushed in favour of London and Financial Services. We got screwed.
If Scotland was truly equal to our english neighbours then surely the simple act of acknowledging that the bqueen is Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland. It certainly puts us in our place if they mean we are part of the union and not much more than just another English county.
I am a proud scot with a scottish mother and an english father and and one thiong they taughjt me was that I should take responsibilty for my own decision (good and bad). If they were alive today they would both be proud supporters of independence.
If we are scared of getting it wrong or of it costing money then we don’t deserve it. However, I doubt if the people of scotland are flegsome nipscarts [scared misers).
Well said Wilf. You are of course bang on.
If we are afraid of it we don’t deserve it.
Sadly, the Westminster PR machine has already made many people afraid. Some Scots equate Independence as increased poverty due to lack of subsidy!! This is why the battle needs to be fought on the economics & finances, if it is to be won.
Here are some upsides to independence…
1. An independent Scotland would allow the government to accommodate economic and cultural diversity with greater control of taxes and policies.
2. An independent Scotland would have control of foreign affairs and would be able to decide whether it is in the best interest of Scotland to be involved in military campaigns overseas.
3. An independent Scotland would have the power to lower corporation tax and borrowing for investments in capital Infrastructure to entice businesses to Scotland.
4. An independent Scotland would have the opportunity to decide how it taxes it people, it could increase taxes on higher incomes earners and reduce impact on lower income earners through the control of VAT, Fuel Duty, Council tax and other Taxes. An independent Scotland could rebalance the books to remove the impact on the poorest and reduce inequality as a result.
5. Scotland would be in control of immigration and be able to tailor their policies to suit economic needs specific to Scottish industry and geographical regions and ensure skilled migrants are targeted. Australia does this quite well with their 457 visa which allows businesses to target certain skill sets on the premise that the specific skill or a suitable person cannot be found in the country.
6. Scotland would have control of how it markets itself to the World, ensuring we are uniquely differentiated, promoting our great qualities and strengths.
7. Scotland would have the opportunity reduce its defence budget (compared to the UK portion it now spends) and focus more money on socially regenerative projects. Scotland could decide to play less of a World Police role that the current UK administration undertakes and focus more on playing a peace keeping role at home in Europe.
8. An independent Scotland could decide to be a nuclear free country and be a champion for a nuclear free World.
9. Scottish people could represent their country at the highest levels in all areas of sport, arts and culture. Scottish athletes would have a better chance of making it to the Olympics without having to complete with the rest of the UK.
10. A national government that would proactively be bias about ensuring Scottish firms are giving the best opportunity to succeed in Scotland.
11. An independent Scotland could participate as co-equals in regional trade organisations and international bodies.
12. An independent Scottish government would be in control of its environment and territorial waters and be able to make decisions to ensure it is protected and sustained for generations to come.
13. Independence further strengthens the existence of the Scottish parliament, ensuring that powers cannot be pulled back to Westminister
14. Government would be able to control transport policy, allowing the government to adjust air passenger duties to encourage more direct flights from Scotland.
15. Independent government which is closer to the day to day issues can react quicker to the problems and adapt the necessary policies to fix these issues.
16. An independent Scotland would have control of media laws to ensure Scottish produced film, tv, radio and print get a better chance at producing their product. This would increase and strengthen Scottish culture. This is evident in New Zealand where locally produced television programs are popular and able to compete with international produced tv programs. These programs than have been successfully exported to Australia and other nearby pacific countries.
The independence debate is a very important one to our constitutional future. The Scottish people are very passionate about the betterment of their country and there are some good and strong points raised on… both sides of the fence as to the advantages and disadvantages of independence. The people’s desire to seek change on how Scotland is governed isn’t a new idea (we already have a devolved government), it’s actually been a very long journey. I think it’s quite evident that the majority of Scottish people currently like having a devolved Scottish Parliament and enjoy the benefits of having that representation over some Scottish issues. The problem is that the Scottish parliament is a devolve government within a unitary system of government, which isn’t ideal because when Westminster was formed as the central government for the union, devolved governments were never considered. Westminster was put together in the belief that it would be the single sovereign parliament of the land (ie whole of UK) with no intention of any devolved “regional” parliaments. As Westminster governs the UK as a whole, there are no distinctions made in the Upper House (House of Lords) for any “regional” representation, ie Scotland, England, Wales, and NI. The upper house is there to review and approve policies put forward by the lower house (House of Commons). As the lower house is predominately made up of English MPs who represent their people, they tend to be biased towards their constituent (which is expected), however this allows policies to favour England. These policies then get passed to the upper house, as there is no equal representation of Scotland, Wales or NI, unlike in a federated system of government, policies can be approved that don’t benefit the smaller nations. This then causes frustration with the Scottish, Welsh and NI people. As the Scottish government is just a devolved government, Westminster still retains the right and power to impose these policies on the Scottish government. I see three possible solutions for this problem: 1) Return Westminster to its original form and withdraw the devolved governments (I believe this would be political suicide and I could never see it happening). 2) Change the Westminster system of government to a federal system where Wales, England, Scotland and NI become states of a federated UK. (I highly doubt that would ever happen, as it’s not in Westminster’s favour to permanently give away some of its power, and this actually would be a disadvantage to England – who currently hold majority of power in the current system). 3) Scotland becomes an independent nation (I see this as the most likely of the 3 to happen). As I said earlier a federated UK wouldn’t never happen and any English person who voted for it would be mad as they would lose their position of power that they currently enjoy. I don’t believe the status quo is the most effective way to continue either with the hybrid unitary system of government we currently have and further devolution will not fix these problems. I believe independence is a better option than the current hybrid unitary system, hence why I will be voting for independence in 2014.
An independent Scotland would be able to choose whether to have phallic symbols of weapons of mass destruction parked in the Clyde or maintain free education for all it’s citizens, free travel for it’s elders, free prescriptions, free health care at the point of use, road equivalent tariff schemes to all it’s islands, main trunk roads as safe motorways, electrified fast rail services, exceptional social care for the elders, and a re industrialised economy built on clean green energy. And not going cap in hand to a foreign country to beg for out own money back, to have it flung back with insults.
Correct. Lets get them out and stick them in the Thames near London Bridge!