The UK and nationalism

[Sit down, fat dog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6258089.stm

So, it looks like that the new Prime Minister is bringing with him a new issue, that is looking increasingly likely not to go away. The demands for the break up of the United Kingdom and the refounding of its constituent countries as independent, sovereign states.

My opinion is firm on this matter, and it might be born out of where I was born, I'll admit that. I'm English, not even some sort of border provincial, I have lived in London all my life to the point of being able to breathe all manner of pollution and I am quite allergic to mother Earth in her many forms. I'm against the United Kingdom breaking up, I see it as political, economical and cultural suicide for everyone, no matter what nation you belong to. I see no winners whatsover, and those who hold the banner for independence as people too ignorant to be trusted with an opinion.

Present company excepted, naturally.

At the same time I can see the reasons why it is gaining popularity, especially with the Scottish who have suffered from fishing quotas and the exploitation of their oil resources. It is an undeniable fact that the further North you go in the United Kingdom, the more impoverished people become. This should be righted, nobody will say elsewise.

But other claims, such as Scotland is politically underrepresented, are laudable. Some of Britain's most notable politicians are Scottish, Gordon Brown, Charles Kennedy, and it may surprise you, Tony Blair. Also, the West Lothian question remains unresolved. (To those who don't know, (I wouldn't expect many to) this is the name for the problem where Scottish MPs may vote in the Scottish Parliament and the British Parliament, essentially gaining a vote in matters that don't effect them - see the foundation hospital vote).

Breaking up the United Kingdom, in all, would be an overreaction and a disaster, and I will offer Gordon Brown all support in stopping it. I will also - if things continue as they are - vote for him if he is leader of the Labour Party in the next general election, despite the fact I identify with the Conservative Party.

[VALIS]

despite the fact I identify with the Conservative Party.

:hmmm: huh...oh really?

[Sit down, fat dog]

Yeah, if you broke down the parties to their core beliefs then I would definately typically vote Conservative. However, the Conservative leadership for the past decade has been so inept and Tony Blair and Gordon Brown so effective that I wouldn't do it. In the last general election I voted Labour, and if Tony Blair was leader of the Labour Party for the next election I would vote for him again.

As it is at the moment I remain unconvinced by Cameron. He lost me when he went on that 'hug a hoodie' foolishness. Also my local Conservative MP is a fool who I hate on a personal level when he was rude to me.

[VALIS]

you dont strike me as being 'conservative' to me.
maybe RESPECT are up your street.
george galloway is down with the muslims you see.

interestingly i live in the town 'irn broon' is from and his current constituency.
i saw him near the townhouse being hounded with a mob of photographers.

i might go into his surgery one day to have a proper moan at him.

[Sit down, fat dog]

you dont strike me as being 'conservative' to me.
maybe RESPECT are up your street.
george galloway is down with the muslims you see.

interestingly i live in the town 'irn broon' is from and his current constituency.
i saw him near the townhouse being hounded with a mob of photographers.

i might go into his surgery one day to have a proper moan at him.

I have publically heckled George Galloway. If you feel that you need to hate Muslims to vote Conservative then you would be mistaken.

the reason we have al this regional nationalism is the leaders:

- have no charisma
- constantly change
- dont listen to public opinion
- will give in to media demands
- not strong willed
- have no objective
- are all inconsistant/hypocritical
- constantly change
- none of the parties have what british people want.


sure they might be able to do the books, but being incharge requires more than that, the government doesnt understand that.

My word! I have to disagree with every single point there, with perhaps the media one, and the hypocritical one, which could be given to every politician in the western world! To say the rest applies to Tony Blair or Gordon Brown is very much in the realms of fantasy.

[VALIS]

I have publically heckled George Galloway. If you feel that you need to hate Muslims to vote Conservative then you would be mistaken.

good job.
i would love to throw an egg at him or some flour maybe cabbage.

[carl-the-conqueror]

the reason we have al this regional nationalism is the leaders:

- have no charisma
- constantly change
- dont listen to public opinion
- will give in to media demands
- not strong willed
- have no objective
- are all inconsistant/hypocritical
- constantly change
- none of the parties have what british people want.


sure they might be able to do the books, but being incharge requires more than that, the government doesnt understand that.

[LoZz]

the reason we have al this regional nationalism is the leaders:

- have no charisma
- constantly change
- dont listen to public opinion
- will give in to media demands
- not strong willed
- have no objective
- are all inconsistant/hypocritical
- constantly change
- none of the parties have what british people want.


sure they might be able to do the books, but being incharge requires more than that, the government doesnt understand that.

well said

i am a welshman threw and threw but i want the uk to stay united.
no good will come from us splitting up

[the Black Prince]

Brown has no choice to but to trumpet this issue. he's a scottish labour MP. the only thing rarer is a scottish conservative. if scotland seperates from england and the union, where does that leave brown? lol... i swear thats his only reason for being such a staunch supporter of britishness.

not that i think what he does is a bad idea, i'm all for britishness. This year represents the tricentenial. what celebrations are planned to mark the sovereign union of 2 great nations? as far as i'm aware, none. and that speaks great volumes.

[Sit down, fat dog]

I did not know that.

[the Black Prince]

it may be said we english will lose the least should the union divide, but that matters not. all will lose. and it is a loss we can ill afford, especially over such petty sentiments of nation pride compared to national pride. if the scots wish to be proud of their nation, then let them, and let them celebrate their nation, but let them also remember that they are british, and let them celebrate that also, and let the welsh and the english join in that celebration, for what better year could we have for it, than 300 years after our two great countries became one

[Erik]

He said the UK was a country "built on shared values" which served as a "model for the rest of the world".

Yep.
The entire rest of the world was modeled after Great Britain.
For example: the Netherlands was build on shared values in 1579 because we
were so impressed by the great example Britain set in 1707.

About this split up: I think that should be up to the Scottish people to decide.
I doubt they could find a majority for it in Scotland, but if they can I don't think it's right to force them to stay in the union.

[Kscott]

Well I think North Ireland may benefit from going to Ireland instead of the U.K, but Scotland, England, and Wales should remain one country. Atleast from my American opinion.

[Sétanta]

Well I think North Ireland may benefit from going to Ireland instead of the U.K, but Scotland, England, and Wales should remain one country. Atleast from my American opinion.

Of course it would. Of course, Northern Ireland is a military occupation, so thats different than Scotland.

I find it ironic that this is happening again. You Brits aren't very good at accepting nationalism. Now, sure, the good of the UK dictates that Scotland, Wales and England remain united, as one, and I agree that should stay the case. Especially seeing that Scotland can't exist as anything but a 3rd world nation without the rest of the UK.

The UK should remain intact, although the British Army should withdraw from Northern Ireland and it should join the Republic.

[LoZz]

Of course it would. Of course, Northern Ireland is a military occupation, so thats different than Scotland.

I find it ironic that this is happening again. You Brits aren't very good at accepting nationalism. Now, sure, the good of the UK dictates that Scotland, Wales and England remain united, as one, and I agree that should stay the case. Especially seeing that Scotland can't exist as anything but a 3rd world nation without the rest of the UK.

The UK should remain intact, although the British Army should withdraw from Northern Ireland and it should join the Republic.

you know nothing of NI!, alot of ppl in NI want to be part of britian!

[lewis16666]

Of course it would. Of course, Northern Ireland is a military occupation, so thats different than Scotland.

I find it ironic that this is happening again. You Brits aren't very good at accepting nationalism. Now, sure, the good of the UK dictates that Scotland, Wales and England remain united, as one, and I agree that should stay the case. Especially seeing that Scotland can't exist as anything but a 3rd world nation without the rest of the UK.

The UK should remain intact, although the British Army should withdraw from Northern Ireland and it should join the Republic.

The problem is that Northern Ireland is as distinct from the republic of ireland as Switzerland is from France.

The majority of the population identify themselves with the UK, they have voted to that effect for seventy years - thats a matter of history and fact. How can a home army be an occupation army, it would be an occupation if the fools with guns (thats the irish army, that would be the official one, that is to say the army that the irish government publically endorces as the official army of the republic of ireland - its good at being nutral in world affairs apparently oh yes and losing its weapons and ammo that strangly finds its way to terrorists that kill British civilians) were to venture into Northern Ireland to occupy a region that has consistently rejected the notion of being part of that republic.

I would of course assure that they wouldent be there for long.

Just like nationalists and separatists every where they thrive on division and destruction (Yugoslavia anyone) just to get power. they are dangerous people with axes to grind that inevitably bring about conflict.

Lets look at ireland for example.

When the UK included all of the island of ireland a bunch traitors and criminals abused nationalism to gain popular support in an election which was an effort to bring about a degree of self government in ireland.

Instead of using this victory in the way that democracy and peace intended it to be used they promptly set up a traitor state that led to a long and bitter war against the UK that was engaged in a life and death struggle against Germany and her allies.

Due to war weariness a compromise was reached and what did the nationalists promptly do - they fell out amongst themselves and begun a whole new civil war. What great irish poets and hero's that they were with out a care for the suffering of their people the sparkle of power was tantalisingly close.

Im not suggesting that the breakup of the UK will lead to civil war but i'd bet my last penny that it will create much hardship. The last time there was upheaval in the UK the country now known as the the republic of ireland was literately broke until like a barnacle on a ship it attached itself to the money tit of the ECC. Whilst the UK was contributing substantially year in year out the republic of ireland was sucking for all it was worth for all it could get.

The republic of ireland is one of the most racist, economically unbalanced countries of the European family so its being allowed to leave the UK could hardly be called a success story.

I cant see Wales or Scotland ever going separate. The UK for all its faults is still a force for good in the world and it will have my support to my dieing day.
Strength in unity.

[caomhanach]

lewis16666

love your historical factual unbiased views geesh

there is so much bull in that post its unreal

setanta your bringing these ireland hating numpties out of the woodwork

[The Alcotroll]

Of course it would. Of course, Northern Ireland is a military occupation, so thats different than Scotland....
The UK should remain intact, although the British Army should withdraw from Northern Ireland and it should join the Republic.

An "Irish" American should keep better abreast of political events in his "homeland". Especially things like the 1998 Good Friday agreement, which has prompted the near-total withdrawal of British troops.

According to a BBC article posted on the 27th Jan 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4094818.stm), British troop strengths stand at 8,500. This figure doesn't just represent Teeth Arms with a visible peacekeeping role, but also the lorry drivers, mechanics, signals staff and storemen required to support them. It also includes TA units, which do not play an active role in peacekeeping operations.
The Army has been scaling back troops since the Agreement, as well as dismantling bases and observation posts, and Operation Banner (the peacekeeping mission in NI) is scheduled to finish on the 1st of August 2007.

It's hardly a military occupation.


Incidentally, I have a question for the "Irish" American posters on the boards. After the declaration of independence in 1776, settlers began to expand westwards into the lands of the tribal Native Americans, displacing them by armed force and appropriating their lands. This process continued right up until 1907 (note- all dates taken from this site: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/America.htm, feel free to correct me if they are erroneous.)

If a loose coalition of Native American nationalist paramilitaries were to begin a "campaign of independence", targeting military and civilian targets with bombs, ambushes and death-squads, would you consider them patriots and revolutionaries fighting against an imperialist/colonialist aggressor? Or would they be criminals and terrorists whose demands are unreasonable, whose methods are unethical and whose objectives should be resisted with armed force?

[wilpuri]

If a loose coalition of Native American nationalist paramilitaries were to begin a "campaign of independence", targeting military and civilian targets with bombs, ambushes and death-squads, would you consider them patriots and revolutionaries fighting against an imperialist/colonialist aggressor? Or would they be criminals and terrorists whose demands are unreasonable, whose methods are unethical and whose objectives should be resisted with armed force?

Although I am not Irish American, in principle, yes. Of course, Native Americans only make up a tiny percentage of the present population, so it is highly unplausible.

The case with Northern Ireland is completely different and the comparison is nothing short of idiotic.

[Manji]

If a loose coalition of Native American nationalist paramilitaries were to begin a "campaign of independence", targeting military and civilian targets with bombs, ambushes and death-squads, would you consider them patriots and revolutionaries fighting against an imperialist/colonialist aggressor? Or would they be criminals and terrorists whose demands are unreasonable, whose methods are unethical and whose objectives should be resisted with armed force?

I'm not American and I'm only Irish by ancestry but let me answer this.
Of course, to some Native Americans they might/would be patriots, "Freedom fighters", whatever you might want to call them. To those in control of the territory, however, they would be criminals. Such is what happens in Ulster.

If we take the time to compare then we see that this is a neverending discussion and such situations have occured throughout history.
Rebels and Patriots and revolutionaries, it all depends on which side one fights for and whose support one has, it's merely perspective.