Comments by "Andy Monaghan" (@229andymon) on "Why aren't we talking about independence?" video.

English independence! It’s there for the English people anytime they want, for whatever reason they choose. They have no-one to persuade other than themselves and no-one to ask “permission” from. What an excellent position to be in. The rest of us are in a different situation.
16
Yes, but what has being the third party in Westminster actually got Scotland? I can’t think of a single thing. Isn’t it rather the the case that Westminster representation is as useful as a cat flap on a submarine to the Scottish independence cause? Westminster is the graveyard of Scottish ambition.
5
@MisterBethany There would be far more practical effects as well. England would have to renegotiate all its relations with other countries and organisations, and would probably lose much of the benefits it gets as UK. Westminster will cling on to the Celtic nations for grim death. We’ll have to prise the dead hand of Westminster rule off finger by finger.
5
@stephfoxwell4620 And ignorance. They’re routinely ignored too.
4
@ScottishRoss27 They won’t offer the English a Parliament, because the English would never accept any limitations to it. Not that they’d have to - who tells the English what they can and can’t do?
2
@ScottishRoss27 I’m struggling to think of a people more self confident than the English. I wish us Scots had their confidence in their own merits.
2
@stevenwilliamson6236 I have nothing against the English people. My argument is with their elected politicians and the Westminster system. The English wouldn’t put up with the “stuff” we are for example…
2
@therealrobertbirchall As a committed indy supporter since the 80s, for me Scotland is, most definitely, a nation. But... not a sovereign one. We are sadly a nation in name only, technically we are, as yet, part of UK. We are not in a voluntary union. If we were, would we be in the position we are now, with Indyref2 blocked by Westminster? The only nation of UK that can be said to be in the union voluntarily is England, since the English could leave when they please.
2
Catalonia?
1
@ScottishRoss27 Why? I’m sure the Catalonian nationalists would disagree since they consider themselves a nation too.
1
@ScottishRoss27 The UK unionist argument is that Scotland is technically not a nation (true), but a part of another (UK). Besides, if such a precondition for independence was a prerequisite, wouldn’t that have prevented many examples of previous successful independence movements? Quebec has never been a nation, would you disagree they have the right to independence if they choose? I disagree with you generally around this. For me every independence movement’s case must be taken on its own merits.
1
@ScottishRoss27 They’re unionists because they consider their country to be the United Kingdom, which they disagree Scotland should leave. I used the term “technically” for a reason. Because while in the eyes of the world, and the UK govt, Scotland is perceived as a “nation”, technically that definition has no foundation in practical reality or legal status. There is no technical Scottish “nationality”, Scotland has no sovereign power, has no rights or representation on international bodies and *on paper* Scotland is simply a part of the UK. As far as the EU is concerned for example, they refuse to formally comment on Scottish independence as they regard UK as the only party with which they can officially talk. Scotland, I’m afraid to say, is a nation in name only. But… while indyref1 was generally a loss for the Indy movement, it did have 2 positive outcomes, it lifted support for Indy to impressive, consistent and viable levels and through it, the UK govt conceded Scotland had a right to secede. This differentiates us from the Catalonia situation, where Madrid refuses to concede Catalonia has that right. Of course, there would be nothing stopping UK from walking back their stance, but I doubt that would happen. As for “appealing to Westminster’s better nature” regarding their UN “obligations” - good luck with that. I’m sure they’re already well aware of those - while blocking Indyref2.
1
@ScottishRoss27 I’m surprised UK makes it to 20th! Incidentally, UK spends more on its military than France, Germany or Japan. We spend too much on military, not too little..! Less guns, more butter. Use any funds saved to increase the shameful UK state pension instead.
1
@thefastandthedead1769 isn't it the same question?
1
@therealrobertbirchall Yes, but their aspiration is exactly the same Scotland's.
1
@therealrobertbirchall its not “nonsense”, it’s realpolitik. If we are as sovereign as you claim, how come we can’t even classify movies…? Scotland has zero sovereignty. What little “powers” we have via devolution are “outsourced” by Westminster, which has the de jure power (de facto would be another story…) to withdraw them as they choose. I’d love to agree with you, but our only official status, nationally and internationally, is subject of the UK. The EU won’t even speak to us about anything that Westminster doesn’t agree with, including of course independence. We do have the option of UDI, which Westminster may force us into, but only if we can carry the Scots with us. Is that “sovereignty”? I don’t believe so.
1
@therealrobertbirchall “let (the English) leave”. No one’s stopping them. However, just like we can’t stop them leaving if they want, nor can we make them go. I’m afraid wishes don’t count.
1
@johncarney9049 No, we should go, but make sure we correctly apportion the relevance and importance of Edinburgh and London for us. We should let it be known we regard Westminster as of lesser relevance and importance. The SNP don’t do that.
1
@ecohipster7724 Technically we don’t. There’s no “law” that mandates a referendum at all since there’s no formal rules around secession. Technically the Scottish Govt could UDI tomorrow, but UK would refuse to recognise it and it’s assumed (enough of) the world would agree with them. But that’s a moot point as I can’t see any chance of that happening. The present undemocratic Westminster veto over Indyref2 has presented the SNP and the rest of the Indy movement with a major challenge. They can’t just accept Westminster can block Scottish democracy forever, but what *do* we do to free ourselves of the Brit union? If the next Holyrood election is instead clearly presented to the Scots as an “Indy mandate” as is being discussed, and is won by the Indy movement, we can only hope Westminster buckles and allows another referendum. If not, UK is taken to an altogether darker place. Would Westminster buckle? I think it could realistically do little else.
1