Here's my views. Firstly, Scottish independence. I supported a yes vote, for multiple reasons. Since Thatcher, the UK has been reducing its public spending, undermining its social safety net. Worse still, the recession created a deficit, which has become a justification for the Conservatives to pursue a policy of austerity. In theory, austerity consists of raised taxes and lower spending to do away with a deficit or debt, and indeed, this is the case, but there is inequality for whom this is the case for. The poor and disadvantaged are being disproportionately affected by the raised taxes, while the rich are practically getting off scot-free. Furthermore, there is much less spending on social security, which the Tories have disguised as "boosting efficiency", but in reality it is further leaving the most vulnerable people in our society even less well off. Look at the Universal Credit and the bedroom tax, for example. If Scotland gained independence, it would be able to act as a counterbalance to all of this; the SNP is, after all, a social democratic party, which is not ideal (like a true liberal democratic party which the Lib Dems aren't) but it's miles better than the Tories. Scotland would provide a sufficient safety net to its most vulnerable people, and would focus on taxing the richest parts of society, the people who are, in terms of economic utility, affected the least by increased taxation. The UK is a fundamentalist unitary monarchy without a written constitution. It is one of two countries, the other being Iran, where unelected clerics sit in a national legislature. Its constituent countries have disproportionate powers; some have more powers than others, and England has no devolution at all. The position of head of state is hereditary, based on the chance of birth. It is unegalitarian, sending a message contrary to the principal principle of equality that we are all born equal. It is sectarian; Catholics cannot become head of state. And it is racist; it is unlikely that any black, Asian, or otherwise minority ethnic peoples will become head of state any time soon. Constitutionally, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one almighty clusterf***. Scotland would have a written constitution, and I would hope it would be secular; it will still keep the Queen, but I believe it would be more likely to become a republic in the future than the current UK. The UK is a client state to a superpower gone mad. The United States is responsible for funding Israel, a Zionist, fundamentalist, anti-democratic war machine, destabilising the entire Middle East with two interventionist wars, and pumping more arms into the global trade than any other nation. Despicably, they spend more on their military than they do on education, infrastructure, healthcare or welfare, the real things a nation needs to succeed, they have deprived their citizens of basic rights to privacy, and have spied on millions. In all of this, the UK has either been complicit in these crimes, or collaborated with the US on them. Again, Scotland can be a counterweight to all this. Scotland can stand up for the Norwegian goal of abolishing nuclear weapons. Scotland can advocate a sustainable path to world peace, through the reduction and eventual elimination of the international arms trade. Scotland can promote Europeanism as a step towards global stability, for countries like Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and others. Scotland has the opportunity to provide real international leadership where others have failed. The UK is set to leave the European Union. The world is ruled by those seeking to oppress. The US is spying on millions, and is a corporate oligarchy. Russia is invading other countries for no end other than nationalism. China is denying people democracy and free enterprise. Saudi Arabia is still beheading people. If we are to establish a new world order, one of democracy, Europe is our only hope. I believe we must unite Europe as a single federation. The resources of every single European nation must be drawn upon to exert the appropriate economic and diplomatic force necessary to end the violation of global democracy. Where the UK is opposed to such an objective, Scotland is sympathetic towards it. The UK has been ruled by alternations between the Conservatives and Labour forever. A two party system does not work, watch CGP Grey and you'll learn that. What we need is STV-PR. There was a referendum on it advocated by Nick Clegg, but unfortunately it never made it to that crucial Yes vote which would have transformed British democracy. But Scotland could adopt STV-PR, giving them a mixture of political representation as rich as the likes of Germany. That sums it up for me. On the topic of the Northern Ireland debate, nobody here knows what they're talking about. Lol. Except maybe PureBredGaeilge. Firstly, Soul, Northern Ireland, as well as England, Scotland and Wales, are constituent countries, not provinces. You may be confusing Northern Ireland with Ulster, a historic province of Ireland, and while some usages of these terms are synonymous, there is a difference. Northern Ireland is composed of six counties, whereas Ulster is nine counties. On the topic of how the independence referendum will affect desires in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland, or even Northern Irish or Ulster independence, I believe it does pose some questions on our constitutionality. We have now established, for the first time, how a real referendum for independence from the United Kingdom should be held. I say a real referendum, because in 1973, Northern Ireland held an illegitimate one, which was not launched with the agreement of Irish nationalists, and was in fact boycotted. My own party, Alliance, actually spoke out against it, concerned it would become a sectarian head count. Because there has now been a real referendum for the independence of a constituent country of the United Kingdom, this now means Irish nationalists have something to aim for. However, this does not mean that since Scotland has gotten a referendum, that Northern Ireland should have one on the basis that 'it is only fair'. Currently, Northern Ireland is led by a five-party coalition government known as the Northern Ireland Executive, made up of two unionist parties, two nationalist parties, and a cross community anti sectarian party, Alliance, of which I am a member. Four micro-parties are in opposition, and there are two independents. In order for a referendum to be held, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, currently Theresa Villiers, must agree one is needed, and negotiate it with the NI Executive. It is significantly unlikely this will happen unless a majority of nationalists emerges in the Assembly, or at least more nationalists than unionists. Currently, there are 56 unionists, 43 nationalists, and 9 'others' in the NI Assembly, so the nationalists still have a way to go. On the topic of whether a united Ireland would be the right thing for Northern Ireland: I'd personally prefer it to staying in the United Kingdom, for most of the same reasons I listed for Scotland. I also believe it'd be a stepping stone to European federalism, which is important. But there are more important issues in Northern Ireland right now than our constitutional status. Sectarianism and segregation costs the Executive £1.5 billion extra each year, just to manage. We are heavily reliant on the public sector for jobs, and largely a drain on the British taxpayer; as a result, we do enjoy an economic dividend from being in the UK, but I believe we should become self-sufficient to put an end to this. We need to reform our devolved institutions, because at the moment, they are benefiting extremist parties like Sinn Fein and the DUP, the two largest parties. The cross-community vote, while designed against the exploitation of minorities, actually empowers exploitation of minorities. The designation system, where Assembly members must state if they are unionist, nationalist, or 'other', is sectarian. D'Hondt doesn't work, we need a technocratic system. If anyone has questions, I'll answer them.
I agree to the majority of your opinions and amazed at the effort put into your response. As a Welsh 'nationalist' myself (I prefer nation-state builder) I accept many of the viewpoints you discuss but don't think a forum thread is the best place to argue over politics so wont leave a big response. One question though, why to you think a federalist Europe would be more socially just and democratic? By becoming a single sovereign Europe, it would become another of the huge world powers like the US, China and Russia who are arms company supported, human rights denying and politically bloated countries (mainly because of their size). As Leopold Kohr theorised, the bigger nation states are, the more resources and more borders they have to defend and the more the people feel the need to 'defend' themselves and in doing so, support mass armies like NATO (which basically acts as the unofficial army of the EU) and believe they need more military spending. Smaller nation states are, conversely, forced to seek peace as opposed to resorting to war as the first response because they know that their size means they cannot have such a massive budget on military spending and the infrastructure for a armed presence world-wide. While I see some of the good things the EU has done, I don't think that these in themselves justify its existence, it was after all, formed to counter the spread of 'socialism' from Russia and the East. It now seems to be becoming more right wing and seeks war with Russia because it sees it as its 'natural' enemy, as it is stuck in a Cold-War mentality. I also think that the EU has too much power over many subject areas and if it continues to legislate so intrusively over its member states it risks stealing their democracies away from them and centralising them to Brussels and Strasbourg all for the good of 'European democracy'. Democracy in my opinion can only exist if it is given to the people at the lowest possible and practical level of governance, which is the main reason why I also support an independence for Scotland and all nations worldwide.
I hate the UK, but I also hate a United States of Europe and the European Union itself Mainly because there's a massive selection of countries I like politically in Europe who will lose their policies if the whole continent were to unite. I would probably like it if Norway and Sweden 'lead' it, since, as you said, they want to abolish nuclear weapons and both countries don't fight against things they can't stop, and encourage it, but with certain limitations. In the case of Sweden, their 'limitations' contradict the whole law itself (if you know what i'm talking about); so obviously things would need to change about that >.> I love the idea of democracy, too. But nobody has done that right so far, and that's why I don't like it right now
Only Europe can create global democracy. Democracy originated in Europe, and has been perfected by Europe (Scandinavia) and those countries with the strongest cultural links to Europe (New Zealand, Canada, and to an extent Australia). While a single European identity (or 'demos') does not yet exist in Europe, I believe only the objective of democracy in every corner of the earth can unite us. It is something which I want to pursue in the long term, in politics. If the objective of Europe is global democracy, it cannot possibly fail. I believe that global democracy must have equality as the absolute top priority, and human rights should be recognised as the only means to achieving that. An important element to global democracy is the end of the arms trade. There should be no weapons in existence capable of ending another human's life or seriously incapacitating them, the only weapons which should exist should be to non-lethally detain humans, or for sport. I do not believe that just because a country is big, that it will abuse its power. The whole purpose of creating this European superstate should be to end oppression worldwide, and work towards the eventual goal of world federalism, followed by cryptoanarchy and the technological singularity. If there is only one country, there will be no feeling that people need to defend themselves against anything. European integration did not begin as a counter to communism, you're thinking of NATO. Rather, it started to make the countries of Europe so integrated that war would not only be unthinkable, but impossible. In terms of the possibility of war with Russia, such a thing is suggested only by the nation states, the European Union itself does not, as far as I know, want war, considering we don't have a single army (nor should we have a single army, there should be no armies in the European continent at all). I agree the EU does have too much power. I believe that where a matter of governance can be handled by a member state, then it should be handled by a member state. Europe should exist as a limited government, with power only over affairs which affect the whole of Europe, and matters which are far too big for any individual member state to effectively tackle on their own. This should primarily include a single European exchequer, the single currency (in every state), and Europe-wide representation in foreign affairs. I do agree that democracy must be decentralised. I advocate that, once world federalism is achieved, we should gradually replace the state and the market with autonomous cryptographic systems. I discuss that in more detail here.
European federalism does not mean the dilution of good policies; rather, it means the proliferation and strengthening of such policies. We can take the best of each country, and apply it to the whole federation. This was already done with the Euro; it was based upon the old Deutsche Mark, with the European Central Bank being based on the old Bundesbank. Only reason we saw such catastrophe with it was because we didn't, and still don't have, a single European exchequer. Having one currency with which to speculate on the public debts of 18 different countries doesn't work. We can take the justice system of Iceland, the quality of life of Sweden, the fiscal policy of Germany, the secular constitutional aspirations of France, the planning of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom's clout, Ireland's technology industry, and more, and mix them all together to create an much better state. As humans are inherently flawed, so is democracy. Only cryptoanarchy and a technological singularity can save the day.
If you don't mind me asking. Why are you for an independent Wales? Us English overlord slave driving masters?
I guess some people do see national liberation movements from an angle of cultural suppression and along the lines of ethnicity or fighting against a foreign power and territoriality. But for me the fact that Wales is a 'nation' while not totally irrelevant, is not the main issue; like I've said before, national movements of the civic kind as in Wales are a question of democracy, and democracy only. Where do the people of Wales want the laws that affect them to be made, in London or Cardiff? For me of course its the latter; power in a democracy should, in my view, by given to the lowest possible level of social unit. Although there is to an argument of culture, language and heritage that I don't completely ignore. Every nation is proud of its traditions and triumphs, none more so than the English. For me, and for Wales though the only way to really safeguard these things in a Welsh perspective is if we achieve self rule and sovereignty. By breaking the UK into its constituent nations, and England (because of its size, even more so) into a federation of it's regions I think the relationships between nations which make up the British Isles would be even more fruitful, friendly and progressive.
