Scottish independence

[Veck]

Eh... It's difficult to say whether I want them to or not.

On the one hand I feel absolutely no patriotic obligation to the UK whatsoever. Unlike Wales and NI Scotland has the economic capacity to survive and even flourish on its own and as someone who has no connection to Scotland I have no right to tell the people living there whether they want to split or not. On the other hand, it all seems so pointless. Independence doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than giving the middle finger to England, which is really just dumb nationalism (as if it's not dumb enough already). I think if I had to pick I'd say stay with the UK, simply for economic purposes. If England held an election on whether to keep or release Scotland though, I wouldn't cast a vote on anything.

[DorostheConqueror]

Well, Scotland does have a Socialist past and Marx once said that Socialism is the first stage of Communism.

Actually, Marx didn't put much stock in "socialism"- his idea of socialism is totally different from it's modern (Marxist and post-Marxist) incarnation, and it barely registered on his List of Important Bedtime Stories.

According to Marx, capitalism gave way to communism, that is, a classless, egalitarian society in which private property was abolished and everyone got exactly what they needed to live (and nothing more), while working exactly as hard as they were able (just 'cuz). He based this on the rather naive assumption that Victorian technological progress was soon going to usher in an era of global post-scarcity, and on the objectively false notion that profitless industries using collectivized labor would actually generate more wealth than businesses in which investors expected to see a return (an idea that has since been dismissed by everyone, even diehard communists). How and why the actual change-over from bourgeois freedom and industry to proletarian conformity and drudgery would happen, he hadn't the foggiest, but he did scribble down some fanciful larks about a "dictatorship of the proletariat".

When you talk about Marx, Big Guy Marx, and socialism, this is usually what is meant. The dictatorship of the proletariat would be, again, according to Marx's drunken ravings, a very brief hiccup in which the workers of the world unite and institute a global "direct democracy" in order to liquidize everyone who is too far outside the common denominator. In a sense, it IS a "socialist" system- it posits the establishment of an all-powerful state entity that will seize the reigns of industry and cultural in order to engineer a "better" society. However, that's where the similarities end- "Marx" socialism is a kind of anarcho-totalitarianism where mass makes right and everyone is held in check by an impersonal hivemind, modern socialism (which I'll get to in a minute) is a strictly stratified authoritarian system in which one group- the "political priesthood"- sets itself apart from the proletariat in order to make decisions for them. Naturally, "Marx" socialism has never and will never exist- if you really need to find a real world parallel, you might cite, say, the Zapatista movement, which is nominally devoted to decentralized, community-centric, business-hostile agrarian direct democracy (although you'd have to ignore the fact that the EZLN is more myth than anything else, dreamed up by the self-aggrandizing upper-middle class academic who goes by the stagename Subcommandante Marcos).

Now, socialism, that is, real socialism, the sort of socialism you and I and everyone else alive todsy refers to when we use the term "socialism" in an unqualified context, was never part of Marx's plan. On the contrary, it was a desperate Plan B, written in to the franchise well after the original author was dead, in order to fill in plotholes and reboot the brand for younger generations. "Marxist socialism", or, as I like to call it, "vanguard socialism", was mainly the product of unemployed rich white guys idling about in the early 20th century (just as Marxism was the product of rich white guys in the late 19th). Basically, the new story was, hey, all that stuff about communism and the Revolution, yeah, turns out we were wrong. BUT! Us rich educated Marxists, we're smart guys, right? We can MAKE the Revolution happen, by acting on behalf of the People, and steering them in the right way. Socialism would be the key: since the proletariat would not spontaneously organize into a global democracy that operates along Marxist principles, the new plan was for the people "in the know" (i.e. the rich white guys) to take over the state and organize it in such a way that Marx's fantasy land would come into being. Again, this wouldn't be a direct democracy; the entire system is predicated on the idea of a separation between the state and the citizenry. The state is a factory, owned and operated by a distinct class of well trained professionals, professionals who know what is best for their charges. Now, it should be noted that even [&@%!] like Lenin and Trotsky didn't think socialism was a good idea- on the contrary, it was a very bad one. If you really view history as nothing more than a struggle between static socio-economic classes and want to usher in a classless society, why ever would you support the establishment of a brand new class that wields even more power than the dreaded "middle class"? But they told themselves it was necessary, for a short time at least, and you lot can trust 'em, because they knew they were morally and intellectually up to the task. You poor peasants... just not quite capable of running a proper Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Don't worry. Big Brother will do it for you...

Thank God the Marxists eventually figured out that the "Marxist" part of Marxist Socialism- the whole bit about liquidating the middle classes, doing away with power disparities, and voluntarily relinquishing control- was a load of bull, huh? Oh brave new world, that has such people in it!

TL;DR SUMMARY: Karl Marx is to Socialism what Jesus' comments in Matthew 16:28 are to the major churches. Please don't say Marx supported "socialism" as a step towards communism; it does a disservice both to the old loon and his vile revisionists.

[Dark Spark]

Scotland is where you keep all your nukes, no?

[POMC S117]

Not all. The Trident submarines are stationed at Faslane.

[Dark Spark]

What happened at Holy Loch? Zombie attack?

[DorostheConqueror]

What happened at Holy Loch? Zombie attack?

Nothing happened. Now move along, mate. We got you on CCTV, hear? Move along.

[philfredobob]

I think scotland should stick with the UK
I dont understand how becoming independant helps them , but they can do whatever the hell they want

[BlackDrake]

Being English myself (I DRINK TEA AND STUFF) I don't really see the point to them becoming independent. It seems a little pointless, simply because if they left GB or UK or whatever, they would kind of lose their 'bargaining power', if you get what I mean. The UK as a whole are a (or at least, USED to be) world-wide powerhouse, but Scotland breaking off would weaken both, not strengthen either.

Then again, they have some oil up there...may have to ta-ALLOW them to get that themselves. That would at least get them some good income as well as some bargaining power back. But aside from that, all they have is tourism and farming, both of which don't do that well in winter...which Scotland seem to have all year round (harr harr)

[Arterion]

I belive it all comes down to which benefits the independence brings. If I take in account the situation in Ex Yugoslavia and the aftermath in the nineties I say that independence was a great success and a much wished thing but in the case of Scotland I see no benefits to it apart another flag over the town hall.

When the ex yugoslavian republics declared independence it was a matter of politics, religion, industry and old grudges. What followed was a series of countries, each with its distinct traditions, language, people, history and in some cases religion. Such process was much needed and it availed Slovenia and now other countries with a membership in EU, a success I dare to say.

In the case of Scotland, truth be told I see no reason for independence. They share the language with their southren cousins, they have the same religion, they are part of Europe together as Britain and they share the economy. Sure they have some different traditions but I doubt that would obtain anything useful from declaring independence. I belive that in the time of the economic crisis such toughts are better left aside for the time being.

[aggie]

if they want independence they should do what we did. basically tell the redcoats and the crown where to stick it and what you think of their mother. independence, true independence never comes from words or voting, it is earned in blood. just like the people of syria are doing now you can't ask to be free.

[ClottedCream]

....

....

...
I...have no words.

[Veck]

Funny how they are asking for it and will likely have it if the public says yes with no bad blood between any countries then, isn't it?

[Believe]

if they want independence they should do what we did. basically tell the redcoats and the crown where to stick it and what you think of their mother. independence, true independence never comes from words or voting, it is earned in blood. just like the people of syria are doing now you can't ask to be free.

So you're saying Scotland should go to war with England?

Yeah.... We all know how THAT turned out EVERY SINGLE TIME IT EVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

[Veck]

Well it did give rise to FREEEEEDOOOM at least once so maybe he has a point.

[ClottedCream]

I'm pretty sure most Scottish people AREN'T for Independence.

[Believe]

Well it did give rise to FREEEEEDOOOM at least once so maybe he has a point.

Temporary FREEEEEDOOOM Veck. Only temporary.

So far, the only country of note, to EVER succesfully break away from English rule, is New Zealand.

[Veck]

I was on about FREEEEEDOOOM the shout, not FREEEEEDOOOM the state of a group of people.

[Jeff]

Where is the option for them (and the rest of Great Britian) joining up with the U.S. We need a few more states. Don't look at me.... Stormborn brought it up the other day. After thinking about it, it seemed like a good idea.

[Veck]

Yeah... That's never going to happen, ever.

[Kerr]

Yes, but i'm not a Scot so i'll leave it up to you guys.

[Stormborn]

I'm with Jeff on that I wanna be an American! The whole independent Scotland thing, I think the French love the idea. As do the sort of Scots who don't really care what happens to Scotland as long as something bad happens to England. Lets just have the referendum the Scots can decide what they want to do and then Alex Salmond can shut the hell up.

[Believe]

I was on about FREEEEEDOOOM the shout, not FREEEEEDOOOM the state of a group of people.

My apologies.

Still, my point is valid.
Currently, New Zealand is the only country in the world that has the capabilities to:

Break ties with countries
Absorb other countries into our own
Set up new countries
Declare independance from any country
Use the phrase "Yeah, nah." and have it make sense


Naturally, I would have to be in charge for this to work, but that is a given. It'll happen eventually. People don't call me the King of the World for nothing.

[aggie]

Currently, New Zealand is the only country in the world that has the capabilities to:

Break ties with countries

Decleration of Independence

Absorb other countries into our own

Hawaii

Set up new countries

U.S.A., and in a way the current Iraq

Declare independance from any country

July 4th, 1776

Use the phrase "Yeah, nah." and have it make sense

you can have that one

[Believe]

Yes, I know that the US did all that, but they had no class, so it doesn't count.

If you're not going to be classy about something, then don't even bother.

Also, sarcasm dude. Wikipedia that [&@%!].

[aggie]

sarcasm will likely be the last thing effectively converted to online type.