That promise was not within the power of whoever said it to make, and that should have been recognised by Scots. The SNP didn't see it as a promise: they made it clear something like leaving the EU would trigger a second referendum, indicating they accepted the possibility it might happen.
The promise, such as it was, was made as part of a series of promises the Westminster government made at the time. Another one was to grand the Scottish Parliament new powers, specifically in regards to decisions concerning taxes and welfare policy.
That also didn't happen.
The British government. The English just happen to be a majority. I'm happy to accept the Scots being dissatisfied with the actions of the British government, but I absolutely am not tolerant of them picking and choosing to call it an "English" government whenever something happens they don't like. Scots serve as politicians and civil servants in that government, in party apparatus, and all aspects of British public life.
Fair enough, though I would hardly say that the Scottish part has nearly as much say in what happens, and especially in regards to Northern Ireland. Still, I concede the semantic, but the point remains that the rest of the kingdom has to follow England's lead even if it explicitly disagrees with it. And what we are talking about is something that the rest of the kingdom (except Wales) largely disagrees with.
What Britain has done, Scotland has done.
If merely by association in regards to Brexit, which is the topic of discussion. I do not call the government English only when it does something I dislike, but in the case of Brexit, it is predominantly an English decision.
Secondly, even where a majority of Scots have opposed the actions of the British government, the supporting minority (38% in the EU referendum, for instance) is very substantial. You disrespect a lot of your own countrymen by acting like they don't count.
Alright, first of all, I am not sure where you got the impression I am Scottish, but I am not. I am only clarifying this to not give a false impression, but I am, from my father's side, Northern Irish.
Second, much like with Northern Ireland, which is a place that I
do have a say in, the decision should be on the people of the country. I am a republican, but if the majority of the people in NI wish to stay in the UK, it is a decision I would accept and acknowledge, even if I disagree with it.
Which brings me to the third point: I find this talk of disrespect laughable, when you consider that the British government acts as though the majority of Scottish and Northern Irish opinion doesn't count by forcing them through something they do not want on the wishes of England (and Wales), because the majority of the vote is in English hands. Northern Ireland didn't ask for border anxiety in the second decade after things started calming down. Ultimately, though, even if the entirety of it was against Brexit (and it wasn't), even if the entirety of Scotland also was against it (and again, it wasn't), they would still fall subservient to largely English wishes. That is what I mean when I talk about self-determination. It is an example of a country not having a say due to being a lesser partner in a union.
What applies to Scotland also applies to Orkney within it, and within Orkney to Stromness, and within Stromness to Gregor and Karen McDonald at 14 Brodgar Road.
Yes, I agree. But this isn't a discussion on the system of government itself, of which I have a myriad things to say. It is a discussion of the national scale, and it is on the national scale that I am staying.
. The issue is whether the autonomy is worth the other costs. Hostility to the EU - which is of course not that uncommon across Europe - reflects this tension.
Scotland can claim independence, but may still find a lot of aspects of that independence illusory as it ends up constrained in many ways, or it might find independence comes at a cost that it may end up regretting - with the UK's exit from the EU as a warning. But like I said, the way things are going, that independence and autonomy from the UK is looking more attractive than it did a few years ago, even despite the potential cost.
Yes, reality does degree that one should be pragmatic.And certainly, an independent Scotland that becomes economically subservient to, say, the EU would mean that national self-determination would go away. Just look at the treatment Greece has had the past 20 years, whose economic policy was dictated almost entirely by Brussels and the Troika. However, I still believe that independence would be worth it, because at least it presents the chance and opportunity at self-determination. Something that Scotland does not have as long as it remains in the UK.
USA
