Scottish Independence: Ireland's Nightmare?



droghedasouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,091
Why not a Federation of Ireland and Scotland with perhaps a capital in Belfast. Northern Ireland could reintegrate with the South but in the context of a federation in which they would feel part of the majority.

Would be a great way of killing off Fianna Fail.
 

Ard-Taoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
746
droghedasouth said:
Why not a Federation of Ireland and Scotland with perhaps a capital in Belfast. Northern Ireland could reintegrate with the South but in the context of a federation in which they would feel part of the majority.

Would be a great way of killing off Fianna Fail.
Given your avatar, is that all you're interested in? That seems a very petty reason for a momentous historical shift in the political topography of these islands. Btw, if Fianna Fáil is killed off in this new polity, how do you rate Fine Gael's chances? Given that you've only beaten FF in an election ONCE in the 58 years of an Irish republic, if FF goes, so does FG.
 

droghedasouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,091
Ard-Taoiseach said:
droghedasouth said:
Why not a Federation of Ireland and Scotland with perhaps a capital in Belfast. Northern Ireland could reintegrate with the South but in the context of a federation in which they would feel part of the majority.

Would be a great way of killing off Fianna Fail.
Given your avatar, is that all you're interested in? That seems a very petty reason for a momentous historical shift in the political topography of these islands. Btw, if Fianna Fáil is killed off in this new polity, how do you rate Fine Gael's chances? Given that you've only beaten FF in an election ONCE in the 58 years of an Irish republic, if FF goes, so does FG.
The remark about FF was itended only as a [humerous] aside.

A farewell to civil war politics would be a wonderful thing.
I would be more than willing to take my chances in a larger Scots-Irish Federation.

On reflection however I think FF would find soulmates in Scottish Labour who are just as used (until recently anyway) to a near one-party state.
 

Kf

Active member
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
272
boldfenianman said:
Kf said:
The independence of scotland would be the end of Britain and a not unlikely scenairo is the break up of all its competent parts with a rise in English Nationalism leading to a desire to jettison parts of Britain that they see themselves paying for. The impact on NI could be devasting with the likely end result repartition. The interesting thing for unionism is whether they would try to go it alone, or develop a union with Edinburgh.

A intesresting comparsion is Yugoslavia in the early 90's and I don't know of a single politican, diplomat, journalist or commentator who could have predicted the bloody outcome.
We covered this somewhere else. The protestant population of NI is about 40% Presbyterians. This is the element with scots links. Concentrated in Antrim and N down. This is the only area with even the remotest possibility of a link to Scotland. These scots-presbs comprise about 6% of the population of Ireland. Any attempt at any kind of link whatever to Scotland beyond good neighbourliness would result in immediate civil war in Ireland and severe disorder in the west of Scotland. Dont forget the catholics in this area would have to be shifted.Insanity. Elvis winning the derby on Shergar type of thing.
I am not suggesting that I think that they would be succesful in persuing a new union, pointing out that when Britain ceases to exist that Unionism is rudderless as its identity is, like most, oppostional, in this case to Irishness.

So Unionism would likely try to promote a shared identity of ulster scotsness so as to maintain the union, any union, so to avoid unity and therefore retain there own oppositonal identity.
 

Strategos

New member
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
2
Well, I'd love to see an independent Scotland, and the fact that it looks like a possibility now is great, but realistically, I don't see it having much of an effect on the north.

The unionists in the north who use their scottish ancestry as their reason for supporting the union would simply: (a) find another reason to support the union and/or (b) blame every single problem that the newly independent Scotland endures on the breaking of its union with England.
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Earnest said:
In the unlikely event of Scotland declaring its independence, the situation in Northern Ireland would certainly be unstabilised. The unionist attitude is one of identification with Britain and Britishness, and the British state would have ceased to exist.

It's misleading to view the Presbyterians as a 40% minority among Northern Protestants. The last census figures were:
Presbyterians 348,742
Church of Ireland + Methodists 316,961 (I've put them together since Methodists were basically an 18th/19th-century secession from the Church of Ireland)
It's impossible to guess the ancestry of the adherents of other Protestant denominations, so it's reasonable to suppose that the majority of Northern Protestants are of Scottish ancestry.
Hi earnest. Not quite sure where you are coming from on this one. 2001 census Prot community background = 895,000. Presbos = 348,742 = 39.06 %. I said about 40%. I said NI Presbos about 6% of all-Ireland population. Actually 5.81%. Saltires and other Scots emblems predominate in those areas of the heaviest scots settlement during the plantation. Antrim, N Down and E. Derry. Presbyterianism hardly exists in England or among the foreign williamite troops given land grants in Ulster who were largely dutch and german. My figures are pretty much spot on. My premise is more subjective but is pretty well demonstrated by observation and frankly common sense. No offence intended.
of the UK of EWNI (just as she is already Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia etc.)

Looking for independence seems quite a possibility. Would Northern nationalists be willing to accept Elizabeth as Queen of an independent Northern Ireland with some sort of internationally-guaranteed safeguards against discrimination?
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Hi earnest. Not quite sure where you are coming from on this one. 2001 census Prot community background = 895,000. Presbos = 348,742 = 39.06 %. I said about 40%. I said NI Presbos about 6% of all-Ireland population. Actually 5.81%. Saltires and other Scots emblems predominate in those areas of the heaviest scots settlement during the plantation. Antrim, N Down and E. Derry. Presbyterianism hardly exists in England or among the foreign williamite troops given land grants in Ulster who were largely dutch and german. My figures are pretty much spot on. My premise is more subjective but is pretty well demonstrated by observation and frankly common sense. No offence intended.
 

Earnest

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
412
boldfenianman said:
Hi earnest. Not quite sure where you are coming from on this one. 2001 census Prot community background = 895,000. Presbos = 348,742 = 39.06 %. I said about 40%. I said NI Presbos about 6% of all-Ireland population. Actually 5.81%. Saltires and other Scots emblems predominate in those areas of the heaviest scots settlement during the plantation. Antrim, N Down and E. Derry. Presbyterianism hardly exists in England or among the foreign williamite troops given land grants in Ulster who were largely dutch and german. My figures are pretty much spot on. My premise is more subjective but is pretty well demonstrated by observation and frankly common sense. No offence intended.
Hi Boldfenianman. The point I was making was that if you wanted to know what proportion of Protestants were of Scottish origin, the only thing you could do was to look at the proportion between Presbyterians (mostly of Scottish origin) and Church of Ireland (mostly of English origin). On this basis, the majority of Protestants are of Scottish origin. If you take the proportion of Presbyterians as 40%, you are implying that all the members of minor denominations and all the people of Protestant background who don't now have a denomination are of English origin, and that's illogical.

I doubt if there were enough Dutch and Germans to have an impact on the population figures: they were just landlords surely. Although the Dutch would probably have been Dutch Reformed (=Presbyterian), in Ireland they might well have joined the Church of Ireland as the Huguenots (French Reformed and therefore also=Presbyterian) did.

If by your "premise" you mean your remarks about building links with Scotland leading to civil war, I completely agree. Repartition is madness. Three-way repartition is madness + madness.
 

LTGuy

Active member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
118
Hi, guys!

Me and friends were discussing the scenarios just after elections in Scotlands. Our take is that next step after Scotland's independence would be independent Cymru. And then you have a hapless "union" of England and NI. Actually I wouldn't underestimate English nationalism. When USSR broke up Russia wasn't the last to proclaim independence - it was stodgy Belarus (very similar to NI in many respects). So probably when it is only England and NI left - it will be English who will secede. Why would anyone in sane mind want to fund bloated public sector of NI? England would find many better ways of spending monies.
 

Papinian

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
13
It is fascinating to read the above twenty odd posts (with the honorable exception of LTGuy's above). They exemplify the lack of attention to economic matters which is continuously on display in Irish political discussions.

If Scotland ever were to become independent it would lose a fairly significant subsidy from the English taxpayer. Possibly there would be upsides to make this loss worth it in the medium term, but I'm dubious.

However, in the case of Northern Ireland, of course it would stay part of a United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland were Scotland to become independent. The reason being that if it did not it would not be receiving the massive subsidy that it's receiving at the moment. The percentage of the NI workforce employed by the state is higher than in some eastern European countries under communism.

There's no way that Scotland could afford to pay that subsidy and, in any case, the Scot Nats have to avoid any suggestion that they have an affinity with NI Unionists in order to keep the Catholics in the west of Scotland onside (or at least not actively against them) - they've learnt from Irish nationalism what happens when nationalist sentiments align with religious persuasion.

Certainly, there's a good chance that Scottish independence would shake up NI Unionists a bit and make them focus more on how much closer Dublin is than London and generally dent self-confidence a bit, but far too early to tell if it would have any more significant impact.

It would make for better discussion if some of the posts here were a bit less based on romantic histories and runaway ideas and a little bit more on realism, but then I guess it would be a bit less Irish.
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,101
Ah the old "yiz are nothing without england" argument.

Scotland has atleast 850 billion pounds worth of oil left!!(todays prices), its yearly budgets would be left with massive surpluses from the oil revenues and the growing economy.
It has massive potential as an independent country, these hand outs from london are a smoke screen covering the huge amounts of money it recieves from scotland in oil revenue alone, and thats before taxes are even considered.
Scotland does not need london ripping it off and dumping its nuclear waste on them!
Subsidisation isnt so black and white, and the scottish people are a nation they dont want to be considered dependent on london and they arnt, nor need to be.

The argument against scotlands independence is non existant, ive yet to hear anything but daft scaremongering, its becoming quite clear in Scotland that support is growing at an incredible rate for independence, the unionists are actually helping by holding off the referendum as by the time it comes around there wont be many unionists left!

Without considering their oil, if they fully integrated into the EU and used the euro, dropped their corporation and fuel tax they could create a decent economy on that alone, just as the ROI has, and they didnt have atleast 30 years of offshore oil.

England has abused Scotland economically and because of that they deserve to lose control.
No-one falls for this BBC crap that scotland cant exist without the great mighty england being in control, infact they probobly find it insulting.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KH0EEnLpYP8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KH0EEnLpYP8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FR5caz8qvPk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FR5caz8qvPk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
 

LTGuy

Active member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
118
Mr. Papinian has got everything wong. First, London expropriates all North sea's oil royalties, and then it is "generous" enough to pay back some money to Scotland. The myth about Scottish "subsidy" is just it - a myth. The same Scottish money is recycled back to Edinburgh, and even not whole amount of it. Financial black holes are depressive north of England and NI. Thus secession will improve financial standing of Scotland immediately. :p
 

Papinian

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
13
LTGuy: No, Mr Papinian hasn't got it wrong. In coming years the revenue going to an independent Scotland from "Scotland's" North Sea oil wouldn't plug the gap in funds were the English subsidies under the Barnet formula turned off.

See detailed analysis from the BBC's Evan Davis at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... ble_1.html

I didn't make any argument about Scotland not being able to be independent because of dependence on subsidies. There will be significant transaction costs in becoming independent (Scotland having to set up new entities where the current ones operate on a UK wide basis) and the oil revenue is increasingly falling below the level of English subsidies. I also expressly noted that in the medium term Scotland might well be better off economically from independence.

However, Scotland couldn't take on (on its own) the burden currently borne by England in subsidising Northern Ireland. I think this would be a relevant consideration for unionists in Northern Ireland in deciding where their allegiances lie.

And st333ve: It took a hell of a long time after independence for Ireland to create a decent economy and let's see how long it lasts before bandying the Irish experience around as an example to follow. Scotland's tax base probably wouldn't allow it to lower corporation tax to the same level as in Ireland, although some reduction would probably be a good idea.
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Does not self-respect come into this at all? I hear lots on the Scots debating whether this or that tax would need to go up or down . Equivalent to a 40 year old man staying with mammy and daddy cos its cheaper. I recall when the Baltic states declared themselves independent in the early nineties from the Soviet Union. No bleating about tax rates. Nows our chance. Go for it they said. Russian troops and tanks in Lithuania opened fire on demonstrators killing hundreds but they wouldnt give in. A Scotland scale nation with balls.
 

LTGuy

Active member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
118
There will be significant transaction costs in becoming independent (Scotland having to set up new entities where the current ones operate on a UK wide basis) and the oil revenue is increasingly falling below the level of English subsidies.
The same rubbish in a blunter way was put forward 17 years ago at the moment of Lithuanian independence by Russians. They said, "You will crawl back on your empty stomach and then we will gonna decide if we want to take you back". Lithuania has been crawling ever since... in the opposite direction. Currently average Lithuanian is 1,5x better off than average Russian despite the fact all we have is sand and clay and our hard-working people. No reason to believe Scottish might be worse off without snooty English. ;)
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
LTGuy said:
There will be significant transaction costs in becoming independent (Scotland having to set up new entities where the current ones operate on a UK wide basis) and the oil revenue is increasingly falling below the level of English subsidies.
The same rubbish in a blunter way was put forward 17 years ago at the moment of Lithuanian independence by Russians. They said, "You will crawl back on your empty stomach and then we will gonna decide if we want to take you back". Lithuania has been crawling ever since... in the opposite direction. Currently average Lithuanian is 1,5x better off than average Russian despite the fact all we have is sand and clay and our hard-working people. No reason to believe Scottish might be worse off without snooty English. ;)
I have no strong opinions on Scotlands independence or continued union with England. That is a matter for them. My real interest in the matter is its effect on NI. If we are honest here that is whats of interest to most of us. I see the break-up of the UK as weakening the NI union still further so therefore would regard Scots independence as a good thing. Might provide more competition for the ROI though. Mr Salmond is a shrewd man.
 

madbitch

New member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
1
the 'civil war' would be Ireland and it's Unionist terrorist problem if it happened that Unionists noticed that other means to victory were working or in danger of working around the same time ...if your friend thought that civil war would result from ranks of republicans swelling...yeah, slight possibility if there was enough of a cultural subtle propoganda campaign in the years preceeding, but who here thinks slab and martin will spend our money on that? almost certainly the numbers of Republicans would be insufficient to win a civil war, plus with Republicans being socialist, if we did win we'd then be the new IRAQ. (rationale: OSSAMA lives here in newgrange or whatever the latest weapon of mass destruction the CIA could come up with)
 

Cloigeann

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
41
madbitch said:
the 'civil war' would be Ireland and it's Unionist terrorist problem if it happened that Unionists noticed that other means to victory were working or in danger of working around the same time ...if your friend thought that civil war would result from ranks of republicans swelling...yeah, slight possibility if there was enough of a cultural subtle propoganda campaign in the years preceeding, but who here thinks slab and martin will spend our money on that? almost certainly the numbers of Republicans would be insufficient to win a civil war, plus with Republicans being socialist, if we did win we'd then be the new IRAQ. (rationale: OSSAMA lives here in newgrange or whatever the latest weapon of mass destruction the CIA could come up with)
Utter shite.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top