Unionism

[mccaughey85]

10 hours ago, exile said:

But your case seems to hang on dismissing Ulster Britishness as somehow not real, which is clearly not the case. As shown in the map I just posted, Britishness is stronger and more geographically concentrated in (parts of) N Ireland than anywhere in Scotland. Partition just does not make any sense. 

Never said its not real. Its incredibly real and powerful but it originates from settlers who were not native to ireland. I aint arguing that scotland uber unionists are more uber than northern ireland. I am just saying that they originally came from britain/scotland and therefore arent indigenous to ireland. Also alot of unionists in ni are concentrated into certain counties and due to partition they are concentrated in northern ireland anyways. In scotland unionists are more spread out across the country. If scotland were partitioned and all the unionists were placed into 1 area then you might end up with a northern ireland situation where the majority identify as being british.

[Caledonian Craig]

13 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Are you suggesting that its only ppl who feel more british than scottish that are uber unionists?

The uber unionists are usually in my experience equally scottish and british with a small minority of them being more british than scottish. The graph shows that to be true. Not that i am saying the graph is necessarily gospel but the idea that its just ppl who feel more british than scottish who are uber unioninists is rubbish.

Would you admit theres a chance that independence might not go well in the first 10 years?

We have nearly a third of our population who are uber unionists. Thats not just disappearing because you think it will. 

 

 

[mccaughey85]

3 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Going by the data about 9%.

Things will play out as you say, which is in line with other countries who have narrowly voted to become independent, and indeed Scottish attitudes to our current devolved settlement.

McCaughey seems determined to ignore this though in defence of the damaging idea of partition.

Eh? Going by the data we have 35% of our population who either equally identify as scottish and british or more british than scottish. 

The 26% who are equally scottish and british will be proud unionist brits. The opinion of being equally scottish and british is something no nationalist i have ever met has had. Infact alot of  no voters and ppl on the fence dont consider themselves equally scottish and british. Classing yourself as equally scottish and british is a trait of proud british ppl who turn up to ibrox with a uj. 

If you think we have 9% uber unionist which the graph clearly shows isnt true then god help us and the indy movement because you are deluding yourself.

I aint even arguing this point in defence of partition. I am just trying to get through to some of you guys that it isnt some tiny minority who will possibly look to undermine our independence, its a very big minority with potential to destroy it.

Just out of interest what percentage would you say are uber/strong nationalists in our population?

Looking at the graph its absolutely worrying to see the scottish not british group at 29%. 

[Caledonian Craig]

36 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Are you suggesting that its only ppl who feel more british than scottish that are uber unionists?

The uber unionists are usually in my experience equally scottish and british with a small minority of them being more british than scottish. The graph shows that to be true. Not that i am saying the graph is necessarily gospel but the idea that its just ppl who feel more british than scottish who are uber unioninists is rubbish.

Would you admit theres a chance that independence might not go well in the first 10 years?

We have nearly a third of our population who are uber unionists. Thats not just disappearing because you think it will. 

 

You are messing your pants needlessly about unionism.

At present unionism as way more power in Scotland that it should have and it has Westminster to protect and ensure they pander to their wishes despite them being in the minority.

Your third of the population who are uber unionists - where will they turn to in an independent Scotland. They will be like a television set with the plug pulled out. A complete disconnection of their power supplied through Westminster-rule. They will face the battle Scots had for generations ass in a battle to be heard when the ruling governments are not to their liking. Uber-unionists are going to have to adapt to the change. Are they going to form their own political party? Remember that your current pro-unionist parties have not been able to win an election in Scotland (GE or otherwise) for over a decade and that won't change anytime soon. With no pro-unionist party in power at Holyrood there is no way there will be any move to rejoin the union.

I think there is a good chance thinks will not be plain sailing in the first ten years as independence (for any country in the world) is always tough at the outset. However, have the last ten years been a bed of roses - most certainly not.

Now can you challenge the points I made earlier in an independent Scotland as in:-

1. It will be tough for Scotland but equally the rest of the UK will feel the effects so it is not a case that the union will thrive whilst Scotland does not in the interim.

2. Other countries in the union (Wales and Northern Ireland) will be buoyed and the growing support in those countries for independence (Wales) and re-unification (Northern Ireland) will continue to grow squeezing the union even further.

3. Whilst there are pro-independence parties in power in Holyrood there will be no move to rejoin the union. How long do other main parties cling to unionism without getting into power? Sooner or later the penny will drop and they'll realise they must change - a bit like Labour has this week on Brexit giving up on rejoining the EU.

4. An independent Scotland seeking to rejoin the EU will be a favourable move for many of those unsure on independence.

5. Time heals. A we see with Brexit the drive to rejoin is fading certainly politically and I'd expect to see the same for Scotland to rejoin the union.

[mccaughey85]

3 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

You are messing your pants needlessly about unionism.

At present unionism as way more power in Scotland that it should have and it has Westminster to protect and ensure they pander to their wishes despite them being in the minority.

Your third of the population who are uber unionists - where will they turn to in an independent Scotland. They will be like a television set with the plug pulled out. A complete disconnection of their power supplied through Westminster-rule. They will face the battle Scots had for generations ass in a battle to be heard when the ruling governments are not to their liking. Uber-unionists are going to have to adapt to the change. Are they going to form their own political party? Remember that your current pro-unionist parties have not been able to win an election in Scotland (GE or otherwise) for over a decade and that won't change anytime soon. With no pro-unionist party in power at Holyrood there is no way there will be any move to rejoin the union.

I think there is a good chance thinks will not be plain sailing in the first ten years as independence (for any country in the world) is always tough at the outset. However, have the last ten years been a bed of roses - most certainly not.

Now can you challenge the points I made earlier in an independent Scotland as in:-

1. It will be tough for Scotland but equally the rest of the UK will feel the effects so it is not a case that the union will thrive whilst Scotland does not in the interim.

2. Other countries in the union (Wales and Northern Ireland) will be buoyed and the growing support in those countries for independence (Wales) and re-unification (Northern Ireland) will continue to grow squeezing the union even further.

3. Whilst there are pro-independence parties in power in Holyrood there will be no move to rejoin the union. How long do other main parties cling to unionism without getting into power? Sooner or later the penny will drop and they'll realise they must change - a bit like Labour has this week on Brexit giving up on rejoining the EU.

4. An independent Scotland seeking to rejoin the EU will be a favourable move for many of those unsure on independence.

5. Time heals. A we see with Brexit the drive to rejoin is fading certainly politically and I'd expect to see the same for Scotland to rejoin the union.

1. Its already tough right now in the union for all four countries but still the polls show a 50/50 split for indy. We have had bojo and tory leader in charge while the cost of living is rocketing and still scots are cautious about choosing indy. If indy proves not to be an instant succes then the pendulum can easy swing back even if it doesnt look that much better in the union ppl will still be swayed to the idea that we were better off back in especially if the uk makes big promises of more funding and better pensions etc. We have already shown that we are scared shitless by independence in the first vote. Most other countries fought and died for their independence whereas we get frightened over pensions and what currency we use.

2. I very much doubt wales ever choose independence. The polling never usually has them ever winning independence. Wales just isnt historically a country and they have never shown any real desire to become one. Reunification of ireland could happen but that doesnt mean that unionists in scotland will ever stop wanting to rejoin the uk and they wont just drop their british identity because of irish unity. Southern Ireland has been free for a hundred years and that didnt inspire scots to up and leave the union. 

Also irish unification could result in unionists in the north moving to scotland and the lowlands in particular. Alot of them have an affinity with scotland due to their ancestors coming from here. Imagine how much of clusterfuck that would be for indy scotland having a huge migration of british unionists coming here.

3. You assume no unionist party could rise to power. If theres an appetite for unionism in scotland then the unionist parties will get votes. Doesnt have to be just one unionist party either. They can work together and undermine our country to the point where they grow support and look to rejoin. You just assuming everythings gunna go how you want it to is strange considering we lost the first referendum and most of the polls show either an even split or a slight majority for the union.

4. Wouldnt really disagree with that. Getting back in the eu would probably have a positive impact on maintaining independence although most voters already know that its likely we look to rejoin the eu after independence and still we are not getting majorities for yes.

5. Brexit is nothing like scottish independence. Time only heals if things are going well and the wound is sealed properly. Our independence isnt anything like brexit. Feeling british and feeling european is no way comparable and our union of 300+ years where we shared a currency,military,culture and fought in 2 world wars and built an empire together is not just suddenly disintegrate because we have slight majority who want independence.

British unionists wont just lay down and when they make up a third of your population then you better believe they will cause independence as much problems as they can, we might even see random acts of terrorism although personally i dont think they will quite go that far.

Pretty much everything you have said is reliant on things going smoothly. Not everyone feels and thinks like you. Its important that nationalists understand this or we will be back to more referendums after independence.

[Caledonian Craig]

4 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

1. Its already tough right now in the union for all four countries but still the polls show a 50/50 split for indy. We have had bojo and tory leader in charge while the cost of living is rocketing and still scots are cautious about choosing indy. If indy proves not to be an instant succes then the pendulum can easy swing back even if it doesnt look that much better in the union ppl will still be swayed to the idea that we were better off back in especially if the uk makes big promises of more funding and better pensions etc. We have already shown that we are scared shitless by independence in the first vote. Most other countries fought and died for their independence whereas we get frightened over pensions and what currency we use.

2. I very much doubt wales ever choose independence. The polling never usually has them ever winning independence. Wales just isnt historically a country and they have never shown any real desire to become one. Reunification of ireland could happen but that doesnt mean that unionists in scotland will ever stop wanting to rejoin the uk and they wont just drop their british identity because of irish unity. Southern Ireland has been free for a hundred years and that didnt inspire scots to up and leave the union. 

Also irish unification could result in unionists in the north moving to scotland and the lowlands in particular. Alot of them have an affinity with scotland due to their ancestors coming from here. Imagine how much of clusterfuck that would be for indy scotland having a huge migration of british unionists coming here.

3. You assume no unionist party could rise to power. If theres an appetite for unionism in scotland then the unionist parties will get votes. Doesnt have to be just one unionist party either. They can work together and undermine our country to the point where they grow support and look to rejoin. You just assuming everythings gunna go how you want it to is strange considering we lost the first referendum and most of the polls show either an even split or a slight majority for the union.

4. Wouldnt really disagree with that. Getting back in the eu would probably have a positive impact on maintaining independence although most voters already know that its likely we look to rejoin the eu after independence and still we are not getting majorities for yes.

5. Brexit is nothing like scottish independence. Time only heals if things are going well and the wound is sealed properly. Our independence isnt anything like brexit. Feeling british and feeling european is no way comparable and our union of 300+ years where we shared a currency,military,culture and fought in 2 world wars and built an empire together is not just suddenly disintegrate because we have slight majority who want independence.

British unionists wont just lay down and when they make up a third of your population then you better believe they will cause independence as much problems as they can, we might even see random acts of terrorism although personally i dont think they will quite go that far.

Pretty much everything you have said is reliant on things going smoothly. Not everyone feels and thinks like you. Its important that nationalists understand this or we will be back to more referendums after independence.

No we will not be back to more referendums, certainly not immediately and certainly not for five years at least. In those five years what happens to the rest of the UK? Are Scots (whether they see themselves as British first or not) happy with the chaotic shitshows Westminster has dished up over the last few years? I think not. So who exactly are going to fight for these referendums 33% uber unionists? That will not get them far along the lines of pressing for change especially in a newly independent Scotland.

to answer your replies:-

1. Yes polls have it 50-50 at present but at the last starting point of 2014 campaign polls had yes support at 29% and that was when we were in the EU as well. How we dress up independence has to be clear and transparent to tackle Better Together claims. Their claims in 2014 were empty promises to Scotland not fulfilled and that is how I'd go about dismantling their case. As for higher pensions? Well since the last indyref the UK government has extended the age of retirement to 75 (above average lifespan for Scots) and their pension at present is the lowest in Europe. An independent Scotland can offer so much more. As for currency it is like decimalisation was in the early 70s. Many were totally against change but a few years later people wondered what all the fuss was about. The pound at present is on very thin ice anyway and all it is is a unit of currency like any other in this world. A pound, a dollar or a Euro - you earn it you spend it.

2. Welsh independence in polls stood at 10% in 2013 and in latest polls less than 10 years later it stands at 25%. They are at the start of the journey to independence like we were about 40 years ago. However, support there seems to be rising at a quicker rate so do not be so easy to rule it out.

Why would Ulster Unionists move to an independent Scotland if re-unification came about for Northern Ireland? England would most surely be their chosen choice. You say they'd have affinity but much of that would be lost with independence. Their affinity would be to their union and that would chiefly exist in England.

3. I am not assuming I am going by the facts. No unionist party has won an election in Scotland (General or Scottish) in over a decade and all polls suggest that is not changing anytime soon. Now do you think, if Scotland gains independence, that people will rush to vote for a unionist party when they see the lowdown tricks their big brother parties in Westminster will pull to try to kybosh independence? You are the one ignoring pure, hard, cold facts that no unionist party has won an election in over ten years.

4. Well perhaps more will jump aboard now that Labour have come out this week and said there is no going back into the EU. So remaining tied to this union is now a definite no return to the EU for Scotland whoever gets into power at Westminster. Up until earlier this week many may have held out hope Labour would seek to rejoin - well not anymore.

5. Time certainly heals and changes people's minds. Scotland going independent would see give years (fixed term government) and in that time people will see there is no Armageddon. Life goes on without having to suffer the shit show every week of clowns in Westminster and their much-publicised incompetence. Once we have got change who exactly are going to champion going back into a busted union? And who will drive that pursuit? The 33% uber-unionists? And that is 33% with no Westminster feeding them power and hope - a bird with its wings clipped. Wil they, in that condition, have the dedication to the cause. The dedication to work every day with little reward to make it happen? The dedication to continue when Holyrood is pro-independence. If you see a unionist party winning power in the next ten years I ask you where is your evidence for this?

[mccaughey85]

52 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

No we will not be back to more referendums, certainly not immediately and certainly not for five years at least. In those five years what happens to the rest of the UK? Are Scots (whether they see themselves as British first or not) happy with the chaotic shitshows Westminster has dished up over the last few years? I think not. So who exactly are going to fight for these referendums 33% uber unionists? That will not get them far along the lines of pressing for change especially in a newly independent Scotland.

to answer your replies:-

1. Yes polls have it 50-50 at present but at the last starting point of 2014 campaign polls had yes support at 29% and that was when we were in the EU as well. How we dress up independence has to be clear and transparent to tackle Better Together claims. Their claims in 2014 were empty promises to Scotland not fulfilled and that is how I'd go about dismantling their case. As for higher pensions? Well since the last indyref the UK government has extended the age of retirement to 75 (above average lifespan for Scots) and their pension at present is the lowest in Europe. An independent Scotland can offer so much more. As for currency it is like decimalisation was in the early 70s. Many were totally against change but a few years later people wondered what all the fuss was about. The pound at present is on very thin ice anyway and all it is is a unit of currency like any other in this world. A pound, a dollar or a Euro - you earn it you spend it.

2. Welsh independence in polls stood at 10% in 2013 and in latest polls less than 10 years later it stands at 25%. They are at the start of the journey to independence like we were about 40 years ago. However, support there seems to be rising at a quicker rate so do not be so easy to rule it out.

Why would Ulster Unionists move to an independent Scotland if re-unification came about for Northern Ireland? England would most surely be their chosen choice. You say they'd have affinity but much of that would be lost with independence. Their affinity would be to their union and that would chiefly exist in England.

3. I am not assuming I am going by the facts. No unionist party has won an election in Scotland (General or Scottish) in over a decade and all polls suggest that is not changing anytime soon. Now do you think, if Scotland gains independence, that people will rush to vote for a unionist party when they see the lowdown tricks their big brother parties in Westminster will pull to try to kybosh independence? You are the one ignoring pure, hard, cold facts that no unionist party has won an election in over ten years.

4. Well perhaps more will jump aboard now that Labour have come out this week and said there is no going back into the EU. So remaining tied to this union is now a definite no return to the EU for Scotland whoever gets into power at Westminster. Up until earlier this week many may have held out hope Labour would seek to rejoin - well not anymore.

5. Time certainly heals and changes people's minds. Scotland going independent would see give years (fixed term government) and in that time people will see there is no Armageddon. Life goes on without having to suffer the shit show every week of clowns in Westminster and their much-publicised incompetence. Once we have got change who exactly are going to champion going back into a busted union? And who will drive that pursuit? The 33% uber-unionists? And that is 33% with no Westminster feeding them power and hope - a bird with its wings clipped. Wil they, in that condition, have the dedication to the cause. The dedication to work every day with little reward to make it happen? The dedication to continue when Holyrood is pro-independence. If you see a unionist party winning power in the next ten years I ask you where is your evidence for this?

Not everyone feels the way you do craig. Your blind optimism regarding independence is not realistic. 

Everything you say there is not guaranteed to happen. If you cant see the flip side then i hope most nationalists can because we will need to understand what could happen in order to prevent it.

You assume westminster wont want scotland back, you assume scotland wont vote in a unionist party even though roughly a third of our population are unionist. You assume wales will vote for indy despite the polls having never showm that. You assume that indy scotland will be a success. Its all based on assumption rather than my argument which is based on potentially what could happen. 

Scotland for the vast majority of its existence in the union has voted for unionist parties and we have had unionist majoritys nearly every poll recorded until recent years. We also voted for the the union by 55/45 in a referendum. If thats not enough evidence that scotland could vote unionist parties in then i dont know what is. We already have a huge proportion of our electorate who vote unionist parties in, cant be far off half of the vote in the scottish election. The problem is they dont vote for one party like the nationalists do with snp. 

[Caledonian Craig]

3 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Not everyone feels the way you do craig. Your blind optimism regarding independence is not realistic. 

Everything you say there is not guaranteed to happen. If you cant see the flip side then i hope most nationalists can because we will need to understand what could happen in order to prevent it.

You assume westminster wont want scotland back, you assume scotland wont vote in a unionist party even though roughly a third of our population are unionist. You assume wales will vote for indy despite the polls having never showm that. You assume that indy scotland will be a success. Its all based on assumption rather than my argument which is based on potentially what could happen. 

Scotland for the vast majority of its existence in the union has voted for unionist parties and we have had unionist majoritys nearly every poll recorded until recent years. We also voted for the the union by 55/45 in a referendum. If thats not enough evidence that scotland could vote unionist parties in then i dont know what is. We already have a huge proportion of our electorate who vote unionist parties in, cant be far off half of the vote in the scottish election. The problem is they dont vote for one party like the nationalists do with snp. 

You are the one making assumptions. First of all where did I even talk about Westminster wanting/not wanting Westminster back? It is no assumption on unionist party getting in it is going on factual voting patterns over the last dozen years even with 33% uber-unionists. And please do not make the unionist assumption that Labour voters all support the union (they do not). The extensive Lord Ashcroft Poll states that 37% of Labour voters voted Yes in 2014 and even the Tories have the odd independence supporter with the poll showing 5% of them voted Yes. Those voters will desert those parties immediately if they sense they'd work against a new independent Scotland. WTF have I assumed a successful independent Scotland. I have said it will be tough in the first 5 to 10 years but so have the last 5 to 10 years shackled to unionism so lets not portray unionism as the only way forward. And sorry but you are assuming far more than me and going against recent election history and polls to try to make a point about a new dawn of unionism.

We are not talking about history here. If we were then Scotland has been an independent country much longer than it has been in this union. Historic voting patterns from decades ago are not relevant only today's political picture can be used as guidance. Your 55% in 2014 were no way all uber unionists with 19% of No voters only making up their mind in the last month according to Lord Ashcroft's poll. Even then one in five No voters (that is all) felt that was the independence question answered for at least five years. A huge proportion of unionist voters? Have you been in a cryogenic sleep for the last decade? And in any case voters for unionist parties, as the Lord Ashcroft poll clearly states does not mean they support the union. Those indy backers who currently vote Labour, Tory or Lib Dem (39% of their voters who voted Yes in 2014) I am certain will switch allegiance from those unionist parties if they plot to scupper our new found independence.

[exile]

On 7/7/2022 at 1:01 PM, mccaughey85 said:

Never said its not real. Its incredibly real and powerful but it originates from settlers who were not native to ireland. I aint arguing that scotland uber unionists are more uber than northern ireland. I am just saying that they originally came from britain/scotland and therefore arent indigenous to ireland. Also alot of unionists in ni are concentrated into certain counties and due to partition they are concentrated in northern ireland anyways. In scotland unionists are more spread out across the country. If scotland were partitioned and all the unionists were placed into 1 area then you might end up with a northern ireland situation where the majority identify as being british.

You keep coming back to this idea that Scotland produces British-identifying people, and when I point out that Northern Ireland also produces British-identifying people, you keep dismissing it as it if doesn't matter because they're 'not indigenous'.  But those 'settlers' of the 1600s have been round longer than the political union that made Britishness a political thing. In other words the political sense of Britishness is less ingrained (albeit not by much) than the British identity of 'settlers' whose identity you are kind of dismissing as not 'natural'.

Do you really think that people who either identify as “Both Scottish and British”, or uber unionists who see Scotland as an integral part of Britain, would accept their country (‘Britain’) being torn apart or partitioned, and them having to be ‘deported’ to a rump ‘British South Scotland’?

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by exile

[Caledonian Craig]

2 hours ago, exile said:

You keep coming back to this idea that Scotland produces British-identifying people, and when I point out that Northern Ireland also produces British-identifying people, you keep dismissing it as it if doesn't matter because they're 'not indigenous'.  But those 'settlers' of the 1600s have been round longer than the political union that made Britishness a political thing. In other words the political sense of Britishness is less ingrained (albeit not by much) than the British identity of 'settlers' whose identity you are kind of dismissing as not 'natural'.

Do you really think that people who either identify as “Both Scottish and British”, or uber unionists who see Scotland as an integral part of Britain, would accept their country (‘Britain’) being torn apart or partitioned, and them having to be ‘deported’ to a rump ‘British South Scotland’?

 

And on top of that those that see themselves as British first are not all uber-unionists but just identify with being British. Being independent would not break the fact of them being British since Britain being that which is known as the British Isles geographically. Uber-unionists are a different breed to that and amount to about 33%. They are the ones who profess to care about their union strongly.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Caledonian Craig

[Dave78]

2 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

And on top of that those that see themselves as British first are not all uber-unionists but just identify with being British. Being independent would not break the fact of them being British since Britain being that which is known as the British Isles geographically. 

No no, you're wrong. The fact the Norwegians share a Scandinavian identity makes them desperate for a return to Swedish rule*


*Disclaimer: McCaughey logic. May not be 100% accurate.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Dave78
...

[mccaughey85]

On 7/7/2022 at 4:54 PM, Caledonian Craig said:

You are the one making assumptions. First of all where did I even talk about Westminster wanting/not wanting Westminster back? It is no assumption on unionist party getting in it is going on factual voting patterns over the last dozen years even with 33% uber-unionists. And please do not make the unionist assumption that Labour voters all support the union (they do not). The extensive Lord Ashcroft Poll states that 37% of Labour voters voted Yes in 2014 and even the Tories have the odd independence supporter with the poll showing 5% of them voted Yes. Those voters will desert those parties immediately if they sense they'd work against a new independent Scotland. WTF have I assumed a successful independent Scotland. I have said it will be tough in the first 5 to 10 years but so have the last 5 to 10 years shackled to unionism so lets not portray unionism as the only way forward. And sorry but you are assuming far more than me and going against recent election history and polls to try to make a point about a new dawn of unionism.

We are not talking about history here. If we were then Scotland has been an independent country much longer than it has been in this union. Historic voting patterns from decades ago are not relevant only today's political picture can be used as guidance. Your 55% in 2014 were no way all uber unionists with 19% of No voters only making up their mind in the last month according to Lord Ashcroft's poll. Even then one in five No voters (that is all) felt that was the independence question answered for at least five years. A huge proportion of unionist voters? Have you been in a cryogenic sleep for the last decade? And in any case voters for unionist parties, as the Lord Ashcroft poll clearly states does not mean they support the union. Those indy backers who currently vote Labour, Tory or Lib Dem (39% of their voters who voted Yes in 2014) I am certain will switch allegiance from those unionist parties if they plot to scupper our new found independence.

Well you are said westminster wont be feeding them hope and power in an indy scotland. Why do you assume that. If the uk feel scotland is too much of a loss financially and culturally then they could easily encourage the unionists and other disillusioned voters to vote back in.

There doesnt need to be a new dawn of unionism, we have already a large amount of unionists if we didnt then  we would of won the 2014 referendum.

End of the day if historic voting doesnt matter then lets look at the present day patterns that showed we didnt want independence in 2014 by 55/45. You can spin things anyway you want but we voted for the union and it lools like a decent chance we will again. 

Thats sadly what happens when you have only have 29% who feel scottish not british.

You would be better preparing yourself for the cold reality of no independence in your lifetime. Assuming your 30+ years. This messageboard is not a reflection of scottish society.

 

[mccaughey85]

On 7/8/2022 at 8:24 PM, Caledonian Craig said:

And on top of that those that see themselves as British first are not all uber-unionists but just identify with being British. Being independent would not break the fact of them being British since Britain being that which is known as the British Isles geographically. Uber-unionists are a different breed to that and amount to about 33%. They are the ones who profess to care about their union strongly.

Eh? Anybody who considers themselves british first in scotland will be an uber unionist/britnat. Uber unionists usually fall into two categories, equally scottish and british, more british not scottish but its still quite rare to meet ones who are british not scottish. I would even say theres a small minority of uber unionists who consider themselves more scottish than british, they just like being british and consider it major part of their identity obviously not quite as much as being scottish.

So do you consider yourself british because we are geographically part of britain?

[Caledonian Craig]

11 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

 

So do you consider yourself british because we are geographically part of britain?

No I do not but there are those that do. They feel the British connection but not through politics. Those are ones that could very well vote Yes but still feel more British. Feeling British and being a unionist are two totally different things.

[mccaughey85]

On 7/8/2022 at 5:44 PM, exile said:

You keep coming back to this idea that Scotland produces British-identifying people, and when I point out that Northern Ireland also produces British-identifying people, you keep dismissing it as it if doesn't matter because they're 'not indigenous'.  But those 'settlers' of the 1600s have been round longer than the political union that made Britishness a political thing. In other words the political sense of Britishness is less ingrained (albeit not by much) than the British identity of 'settlers' whose identity you are kind of dismissing as not 'natural'.

Do you really think that people who either identify as “Both Scottish and British”, or uber unionists who see Scotland as an integral part of Britain, would accept their country (‘Britain’) being torn apart or partitioned, and them having to be ‘deported’ to a rump ‘British South Scotland’?

 

I dismiss it because they wouldnt be in northern ireland had they not settled there from scotland and northern england. What are you not understanding about that. 

Also it depends on when you consider britishness to have started and if ppl considered themselves british before 1707 or 1603. The romans referred to these islands as the british isles and the picts and other celtic tribes may have been considered british by the romans or even by themselves. Its something thats hard to tell due no newspapers or opinion polls back then. Also the world was changing and a british empire colonising the world probably gave many a chance to identify as being british if they wanted to. Many scots took this chance when they migrated and colonised places like ireland and india etc. 

The scots that colonised the north of ireland were very much loyal to the crown and britain. If they hadnt of settled there then irish gaels would be the  dominant population in the north and i very much doubt they would be loyal to the british crown or government or even consider themselves british. Facts show that catholic gaels tended to rebel against the crown and britain and they fought back time and time again. 

End of the day its a simple fact that ireland would have very little ppl identifying as british had the british ppl not colonised the place. The same cannot be said of scotland. Many of our native population have considered themselves british andit wasnt down to settlers moving here.

Obviously the unionists scots would hate having to move to this new state but they would be told that their british/unionist culture isnt welcome in the newly indy scotland and they will not be tolerated. It leaves them with options of getting behind an indy scotland or fukking out of it and leaving us in peace.

[mccaughey85]

10 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

No I do not but there are those that do. They feel the British connection but not through politics. Those are ones that could very well vote Yes but still feel more British. Feeling British and being a unionist are two totally different things.

Lol come on tae fuck. The scots who feel british first are generally uber unionists. Dont think i have ever encountered someone who  identifies as more british than scottish who wasnt a unionist/britnat.

Edited July 11, 2022 by mccaughey85

[mccaughey85]

On 7/8/2022 at 10:43 PM, Dave78 said:

No no, you're wrong. The fact the Norwegians share a Scandinavian identity makes them desperate for a return to Swedish rule*


*Disclaimer: McCaughey logic. May not be 100% accurate.

What % did the norwegians vote for independence in 1905?

[exile]

On 7/8/2022 at 8:24 PM, Caledonian Craig said:

And on top of that those that see themselves as British first are not all uber-unionists but just identify with being British. Being independent would not break the fact of them being British since Britain being that which is known as the British Isles geographically. Uber-unionists are a different breed to that and amount to about 33%. They are the ones who profess to care about their union strongly.

I suspect there are a fair few older people who identify as both British ad Scottish as they see it as a simple factual statement and they might think that people who say they are 'not British' are in denial.

Also, there may well be New Scots/incomers who could be English or Welsh - or Londoners (who identify more as British than English) who would tick British over Scottish, but it doesn't mean they would all vote No.

What we need is a wider pool of opinions from people from different backgrounds!

Edited July 11, 2022 by exile

[ParisInAKilt]

24 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

I dismiss it because they wouldnt be in northern ireland had they not settled there from scotland and northern england. What are you not understanding about that. 

Also it depends on when you consider britishness to have started and if ppl considered themselves british before 1707 or 1603. The romans referred to these islands as the british isles and the picts and other celtic tribes may have been considered british by the romans or even by themselves. Its something thats hard to tell due no newspapers or opinion polls back then. Also the world was changing and a british empire colonising the world probably gave many a chance to identify as being british if they wanted to. Many scots took this chance when they migrated and colonised places like ireland and india etc. 

The scots that colonised the north of ireland were very much loyal to the crown and britain. If they hadnt of settled there then irish gaels would be the  dominant population in the north and i very much doubt they would be loyal to the british crown or government or even consider themselves british. Facts show that catholic gaels tended to rebel against the crown and britain and they fought back time and time again. 

End of the day its a simple fact that ireland would have very little ppl identifying as british had the british ppl not colonised the place. The same cannot be said of scotland. Many of our native population have considered themselves british andit wasnt down to settlers moving here.

Obviously the unionists scots would hate having to move to this new state but they would be told that their british/unionist culture isnt welcome in the newly indy scotland and they will not be tolerated. It leaves them with options of getting behind an indy scotland or fukking out of it and leaving us in peace.

Progressive 

[Caledonian Craig]

17 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Lol come on tae fuck. The scots who feel british first are generally uber unionists. Dont think i have ever encountered someone who  identifies as more british than scottish who wasnt a unionist/britnat.

Sorry but you have no clue and that proves it.

A unionist is one who see the union has most important to them and it is all about politics. Keeping the political structure as it is - in the dark ages.

A British person - one who can account with being British is more connected to culture not politics of Britain so are certainly not guaranteed No voters.

[mccaughey85]

13 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Sorry but you have no clue and that proves it.

A unionist is one who see the union has most important to them and it is all about politics. Keeping the political structure as it is - in the dark ages.

A British person - one who can account with being British is more connected to culture not politics of Britain so are certainly not guaranteed No voters.

We are talking about scots who consider themselves more british than scottish or british not scottish?

You are telling me that a small % of those ppl are not unionists/britnats but scottish nationalists?

Seriously thats something i have never encountered either in person or online, radio, tv etc. 

 

 

[mccaughey85]

19 minutes ago, exile said:

I suspect there are a fair few older people who identify as both British ad Scottish as they see it as a simple factual statement and they might think that people who say they are 'not British' are in denial.

Also, there may well be New Scots/incomers who could be English or Welsh - or Londoners (who identify more as British than English) who would tick British over Scottish, but it doesn't mean they would all vote No.

What we need is a wider pool of opinions from people from different backgrounds!

There will be a very tiny minority who consider themselves equally british and scottish who are yes voters. But there will also be a tiny minority of the more scottish than british ppl who vote no. Theres always exceptions to the rule or outliers. Imo the referendum came down alot to identity and what you see yourself as rather than money. 

I agree there might be a few incomers who consider themselves more british than scottish who might vote yes.

In my experience theres next to no one who is scottish born and bred who considers themselves more british than scottish who isnt a unionist/britnat. Those types are usually the most hardline of the uber unionists.

[exile]

1 hour ago, mccaughey85 said:

I dismiss it because they wouldnt be in northern ireland had they not settled there from scotland and northern england. What are you not understanding about that. 

...

Many of our native population have considered themselves british andit wasnt down to settlers moving here.

Right here is the nub of the matter. Many of our native Scots consider themselves British first. And many other of our native Scots consider themselves Scottish not British.  Now why is that?

It's not due to settlers moving here (as you say) and it is not to do with ethnicity. It is due to culture, people being brought up to believe they are British, and who happen to live in Scotland; versus people being brought up to be Scottish, while Scotland happens to be in a British union. 

My view is that this is in effect the same mechanism as in Northern Ireland. That is, it is culture that brings people up to believe they are British, despite them living on the island of Ireland. I would argue that anyone alive today in Northern Ireland who identifies as British is more conclusively likely to do so because they are brought up to be British during their own lifetime (!), and not so much because of where their distant relatives came from 400 years ago. 

For example, the Williamite army of 1690 had soldiers of many countries, apparently only half were British. It's easy to imagine a non Brit veteran - say a Dutchman - settling down somewhere in Ulster, and bringing up his family as loyal Brits. The fact he didn't set foot in Britain is irrelevant to his children's cultural Britishness. Conversely a Jacobite veteran from Scotland could settle down with an Irish lass and bring them up as Irish, and the fact he was an ethnic Brit would be irrelevant to his children's cultural Irishness.

So in conclusion I think identity is more malleable than you are making out. It all boils down to the relative rate at which Scots bring up their kids to identify as British or Scottish. As far as the stats go, I thought the trend was to people more identifying as Scottish these days. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by exile

[mccaughey85]

31 minutes ago, exile said:

Right here is the nub of the matter. Many of our native Scots consider themselves British first. And many other of our native Scots consider the Scottish not British.  Now why is that?

It's not due to settlers moving here (as you say) and it is not to do with ethnicity. It is due to culture, people being brought up to believe they are British, and who happen to live in Scotland; versus people being brought up to be Scottish, where Scotland happens to be in a political union. 

My view is that this is in effect the same mechanism as in Northern Ireland. That is, it is culture that brings people up to believe they are British, despite them living on the island of Ireland. I would argue that anyone alive today in Northern Ireland who identifies as British is more conclusively likely to do so because they are brought up to be British during their own lifetime (!), and not so much because of where their distant relatives came from 400 years ago. 

For example, the Williamite army of 1690 had soldiers of many countries, apparently only half were British. It's easy to imagine a non Brit veteran - say a Dutchman - settling down somewhere in Ulster, and bringing up his family as loyal Brits. The fact he didn't set foot in Britain is irrelevant.  Conversely a Jacobite veteran from Scotland could settled down with an Irish lass and bring them up as Irish, and the fact he was  an ethnic Brit would be irrelevant.

So it boils down to the relative rate at which Scots bring up their kids to identify as British or Scottish. As far as the stats go, I thought the trend was to people more identifying as Scottish these days. 

 

 

Its not the same mechanism imo. If it was the same mechanism then ireland wouldnt have british ppl in the north. Those ppl would identify as irish by now due to being in ireland for hundreds of years in the same way some scots consider themselves british because they are in britain.

The british in northern ireland understand they are originally not from there and still wish to remain british. The scots who consider themselves british and scottish do so because they are on the island of britain and they see themselves as native to britain.

Culture is a small part of it but its more to do with where you are originally from. Lowland scots had the kingdom of strathclyde before scotland was formed and they were called the britons. North of that was the picts and scots who amalgamated to create one kingdom and essentially that was the start of scotland as country before we then took strathclyde and the borders etc which had the britons and the angles. 

I would say the descendants of the britons of strathclyde and the fact we are on the island of britain is why we naturally produce ppl with a strong british identity. Also the emigration of northern irish brits into lowland scotland(effectively returning to their homeland)in the last 150+ years has helped push more scots towards british identity.

Edited July 11, 2022 by mccaughey85

[exile]

6 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

Its not the same mechanism imo. If it was the same mechanism then ireland wouldnt have british ppl in the north. Those ppl would identify as irish by now due to being in ireland for hundreds of years in the same way some scots consider themselves british because they are in britain.

The british in northern ireland understand they are originally not from there and still wish to remain british. The scots who consider themselves british and scottish do so because they are on the island of britain and they see themselves as native to britain.

Culture is a small part of it but its more to do with where you are originally from. Lowland scots had the kingdom of strathclyde before scotland was formed and they were called the britons. North of that was the picts and scots who amalgamated to create one kingdom and essentially that was the start of scotland as country before we then took strathclyde and the borders etc which had the britons and the angles. 

I would say the descendants of the britons of strathclyde and the fact we are on the island of britain is why we naturally produce ppl with a strong british identity. Also the emigration of northern irish brits into lowland scotland(effectively returning to their homeland)in the last 150+ years has helped push more scots towards british identity.

But you don't address my Williamite v Jacobite point about culture trumping ethnicity.