.
Again, I don't see your point.
That the current arrangement is good for Scotland or in any way geared to Scotland’s interests is highly debateable. Granted in most parts of the world British diplomatic representation is available locally. But what - and who - does this diplomatic network represent exactly? The foreign policy behind it is driven by interests that are often contrary to Scottish public and political will, as many of the UK’s foreign activities, such as Iraq, would demonstrate. These activities make the UK an unpopular country in many parts of the world. Scotland, on the other hand, is a liked and trusted brand in many areas where the UK is not.
What’s the use of this supposedly vast array of embassies representing the UK’s interests, when they’re (quite naturally and reasonably) not working primarily for Scotland? Once again we see the unionist fallacy that the UK's interests are Scotland's interests. They patently aren't in many aspects, or we would not be having this debate.
There is no reason to suppose that there is some magic bar of size, population or wealth above which a country becomes good at representing its own interests, and below which a voice in the international community becomes unsustainable. Many countries the size of Scotland or smaller manage just fine representing their own interests diplomatically. I wonder whether New Zealand or Ireland feel they’re managing to represent themselves on the world stage, or if they’d prefer London to do it for them.
Reasons not to break up the UK family #14
Moderator: Herby Dice
- NickB
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2514
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:18 pm
- Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land (or so I'm told by some)
- Contact:
Re: Reasons not to break up the UK family #14
NickB
(site admin)
(site admin)
- NickB
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2514
- Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:18 pm
- Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land (or so I'm told by some)
- Contact:
Re: Reasons not to break up the UK family #14
.
Your suggestion seems to be that an independent Scotland would either have abandoned its citizens or done something totally inappropriate.
I find that a ridiculous assumption. In fact, I find it insulting - even though I am not a 'true-born' Scot.
And I wonder . . . let us imagine a situation where there were Scots trapped somewhere with no other way out . . . do you suppose the rUK fleet would leave them to die? That would be a fine thank-you for three hundred years of loyal Scottish service in the British army. I can just imagine the captain of the warship saying,
"Sorry Jock, you shouldn't have voted for that separatist lot . . . toodle-pip old chap"
Your suggestion seems to be that an independent Scotland would either have abandoned its citizens or done something totally inappropriate.
I find that a ridiculous assumption. In fact, I find it insulting - even though I am not a 'true-born' Scot.
And I wonder . . . let us imagine a situation where there were Scots trapped somewhere with no other way out . . . do you suppose the rUK fleet would leave them to die? That would be a fine thank-you for three hundred years of loyal Scottish service in the British army. I can just imagine the captain of the warship saying,
"Sorry Jock, you shouldn't have voted for that separatist lot . . . toodle-pip old chap"
NickB
(site admin)
(site admin)
Re: Reasons not to break up the UK family #14
I disagree that Britain is an unpopular country worldwide. We have one of the most cosmopolitan populations of people from all over the world who chose to move here. We are a respected nation, a defender of the weak and oppressed. Any dislike for Britain generally comes from those countries with undemocratic regimes or where they allow terrorists to base themselves. They are enemies of the free world and democracy.
The Middle East has always been a hornet's nest. They are always fighting amongst themselves. In going into Iraq Britain contributed to the regime change that could have brought democracy and stability to one of the most important countries in that region. The fact it has returned to unrest is a measure of the people who continue to squabble amongst themselves. If only people had been more supportive of completing the job, with more nations joining in, it might have brought peace. But there will always be folk who stand on the sidelines and say, "We told you so", but they are never the ones who achieve anything in life.
As for,
The Middle East has always been a hornet's nest. They are always fighting amongst themselves. In going into Iraq Britain contributed to the regime change that could have brought democracy and stability to one of the most important countries in that region. The fact it has returned to unrest is a measure of the people who continue to squabble amongst themselves. If only people had been more supportive of completing the job, with more nations joining in, it might have brought peace. But there will always be folk who stand on the sidelines and say, "We told you so", but they are never the ones who achieve anything in life.
As for,
Well that's eactly what a lot of Daily Mail readers would say. But you're right. rUK would save the Scots too, but that's because everyone knows they can trust the British to save the weak and SNP oppressed. Scotland does depend on rUK, and that's why we are better together. But you've been arguing all along that Scotland could look after itself."Sorry Jock, you shouldn't have voted for that separatist lot . . . toodle-pip old chap"
Re: Reasons not to break up the UK family #14
Well said.PentlandPirate II wrote:. rUK would save the Scots too, but that's because everyone knows they can trust the British to save the weak and SNP oppressed. Scotland does depend on rUK, and that's why we are better together. But you've been arguing all along that Scotland could look after itself.
Re: Reasons not to break up the UK family #14
You're welcome.PentlandPirate II wrote:Thank you.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest