Scottish Independence

[Allan Heron]

It doesn't tend to grow out of class divisions rather nationalistic ones. Class identity is even more artificial than concepts of nationhood and nationalism.

 

You'll send him off on another one now

[Woodstock Jag]

You'll send him off on another one now

 

 

Shhhh he might not realise it's bait!

 

[Meister Jag]

You'll send him off on another one now

 

Ouch that hurt, one Renfrewshire guy putting the boot into another. A kick in the stones Paisley-style

 

Anyway, from a Marxist perspective and as my mission is to educate and inform we must start by asking what is a nation?

 

Well, to my mind, a nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people. However, this community is not racial, nor is it tribal. For example and this is quite a good example, the modern Italian nation was formed from Romans, Teutons, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so forth. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Teutons, and so on. The same must be said of the British, the Germans and others, who were formed into nations from people of diverse races and tribes. With the point being that we're all a b****** mix of peoples - look at the Scots! Therefore, a nation is not racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people.

 

So left-wing, so lovely; but does that make sense? I know what I'm trying to say but maybe that comes across as one load of keech But Stalin (normally don't quote him as I hate the c***) summed it up nicely: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” Which I think was what Woody was trying to say; so I'm now left wondering if he's slowly but surely turning into a left-leaning academic. Some of his recent stuff has been borderline right on; which is a first! Maybe he's now of an age and has thought he'd look dashing when he heads back to Uni with a wee goatee!

Edited September 9, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Meister Jag]

It doesn't tend to grow out of class divisions rather nationalistic ones. Class identity is even more artificial than concepts of nationhood and nationalism.

 

Hmm and I promise I'm not going off on one - wasn't going to post but then thought I'd better challenge / correct your assertion (promise this won't end up as range war... I'm going out tonight). The notion of class, as it is used by Marxists, differs radically from the notion of class as used in bourgeois social theory; which will be what you were presumably fed at school. Not having a pop incidentally, I seem to recall that I was forced-fed this nonsense too.

 

As I see it, according to modern capitalist thinking, class is an abstract universal defined by the common attributes of its members e.g. all who make less than £xk a year constitute a "lower" class; categories and conceptions that have an existence prior to and independent of the people who make up the class. The job of Marxists is to break free from economic shackles and emancipate all of humankind. And if you're very good maybe one day I'll tell you how it will be done. Bet you can't wait...

 

But to pull this back into the the subject under discussion, will any neo-liberal government that Scotland has to offer make anything better for the average person in the street? I suspect not. The system only changes when radically tested and I'm the first to concede that it doesn't look as if Scotland is ready to take such a step. But maybe if we do go down the independence road and central government makes an a*** of it, then this might be a step in that direction. 'Independence' alone, as advocated by the Scottish National Party, is not enough. Following 'independence" the Scottish Saltire may well fly in place of the Butchers Apron but big business would still ultimately rule Scotland and the Scottish people. All of which takes me full circle and back to my earlier somewhat cynical point: why bother, what's really going to be better?

Edited September 9, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

Hmm and I promise I'm not going off on one - wasn't going to post but then thought I'd better challenge / correct your assertion (promise this won't end up as range war... I'm going out tonight). The notion of class, as it is used by Marxists, differs radically from the notion of class as used in bourgeois social theory; which will be what you were presumably fed at school. Not having a pop incidentally, I seem to recall that I was forced-fed this nonsense too.

 

Uh no. Indeed most of the Marxist concept of the class system bears no relation whatsoever to the composition of modern society. It barely represented the then society either.

 

As I see it, according to modern capitalist thinking, class is an abstract universal defined by the common attributes of its members e.g. all who make less than £xk a year constitute a "lower" class; categories and conceptions that have an existence prior to and independent of the people who make up the class. The job of Marxists is to break free from economic shackles and emancipate all of humankind. And if you're very good maybe one day I'll tell you how it will be done. Bet you can't wait...

 

Uh no, class has virtually nothing to do with income. It comes down to education, lifestyle and origin. As I said, it's arbitrary.

 

But to pull this back into the the subject under discussion, will any neo-liberal government that Scotland has to offer make anything better for the average person in the street? I suspect not. The system only changes when radically tested and I'm the first to concede that it doesn't look as if Scotland is ready to take such a step. But maybe if we do go down the independence road and central government makes an a*** of it, then this might be a step in that direction. 'Independence' alone, as advocated by the Scottish National Party, is not enough. Following 'independence" the Scottish Saltire may well fly in place of the Butchers Apron but big business would still ultimately rule Scotland and the Scottish people. All of which takes me full circle and back to my earlier somewhat cynical point: why bother, what's really going to be better?

 

I'll leave it to those who want independence to rip this to shreds. To me this just reads like retrograde counter-factual society.

[Meister Jag]

Woody

 

It will come as no surprise for you to hear that I disagree with your assertions. However, as mentioned i have no wish to hog this discussion.

 

If it is the will of the people to vote for independence then fair enough; but I'd like to know what will be so great about this new society. In truth and I promise I'm not trying to wind you up, I don't see what will be different. If you can tell me otherwise, I may be enlightened and for ever in your debt. Okay, that last bit was a bit of sh***, but you know what I mean.

 

With apologies to all pro-SNP Jags fans for any offence caused.

[Meister Jag]

Uh no. Indeed most of the Marxist concept of the class system bears no relation whatsoever to the composition of modern society. It barely represented the then society either.

 

And...

 

Uh no, class has virtually nothing to do with income. It comes down to education, lifestyle and origin. As I said, it's arbitrary.

 

If you weren't a Liberal I'd let this go but needs must, I have a civic duty to challenge you on behalf of all sane people - responding from a portable device so apologies if this is all over the place!

 

Anyway, off the top of my head: the basic Marxist-Leninist concept of social class is determined not by the amount of a person's wealth, but by the source of his income as determined by his relation to labour and to the means of production. Classes are by and large groups of people differing from each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their relation (in most cases fixed and formulated by law and the where they're pigeon-holed in life e.g. my dad worked in the docks so that's where I'll work after school) to the means of production, by their role in the social organisation of labour, and, consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they dispose and their mode or means of acquiring it. for example, you earn a minimum wage, you're not going to be able to buy your first house in say Bearsden or Kilmacolm. So by means of income, your place in the pecking order of life is being established. (Read Vladimir I. Lenin: 'A Great Beginning: Heroism of the Workers in the Rear: 'Communist Subbotniks' in: 'Collected Works', Volume 29; Moscow; 1965; p. 421). (You couldn't make that title up, many of the current cabinet probably had something similar doing the rounds at their boarding school of parental choice. ) And I know you'll say that no one need follow their dad in to the factory, but for a lot of people life unfortunately doesn't afford them that opportunity.

 

To Marxist-Leninists, therefore, the class to which a person belongs is determined by objective reality, not by someone's opinion of where they could end up in an unfair World. I think it was Engels who summed it up when he said that ordinary workers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live. Most of us fall into that class; although some have labour to sell but no one willing to purchase their skills.

 

Better go, just read this back to the guy who's driving and he's called me a boring turd. Guilty as charged and no more from me on this subject; so you can have the last word - as you no doubt will.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

There's no such thing as social production.

[Meister Jag]

There's no such thing as social production.

 

If I start arguing this point we'll stray way off topic, but why not look at it as the social relationships of production. After all, it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. Unpick that one and you have passed Marxism for Beginners Grade 3.

 

In fairness, you are beginning to show some promise But no more from me on this one; no matter what you respond with... my wife is threatening to kill me if I post anything further and is now monitoring my posts and threatening to burn my political library. little does she know that what I don't know, I just make up, but you probably knew that all ready.

 

Enjoy the rest of your weekend - I will and the Jags pulled off a good result today. Coming back from being two down has fair cheered me up. All this political talk can wait until another day.

 

Cheers

 

 

MJ

[policemans whistle]

Sorry if this is slightly off topic but does any of you political guys know which constituency in Glasgow ie rated the poorest.

Also I was told that the late Mr Donald Dewar amassed a private art collection worth millions.I was in contact with some of his closest friends a few days ago and they said they had never heard of it.Does anyone know?

[Meister Jag]

Sorry if this is slightly off topic but does any of you political guys know which constituency in Glasgow ie rated the poorest.

Also I was told that the late Mr Donald Dewar amassed a private art collection worth millions.I was in contact with some of his closest friends a few days ago and they said they had never heard of it.Does anyone know?

 

Don't know too much about DD but I believe he left a sizeable art collection - paintings and other bits 'n' bobs when he died. Seems to have been worth a wee bit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1416643.stm from Google.

 

To the second question it is Glasgow Shettleston; think of all the negative publicity during bi-elections etc. Again from Google and this is from a Holyrood list:

 

 

1 Parkhead West and Barrowfield (Glasgow Shettleston)

 

 

2 Paisley Ferguslie (Paisley North)

 

 

3 Keppochhill (Glasgow Maryhill)

 

 

4 Possilpark (Glasgow Maryhill)

 

 

5 Possilpark

 

 

6 Glenwood North (Glasgow Cathcart)

 

 

7 Parkhead West and Barrowfield

 

 

8 Paisley Ferguslie

 

 

9 Drumchapel North (Glasgow Anniesland)

 

 

10 Drumry East (Glasgow Anniesland)

 

 

11 Paisley Ferguslie

 

 

12 Central Easterhouse (Glasgow Baillieston)

 

 

13 Old Shettleston and Parkhead North (Glasgow Baillieston)

 

 

14 Overton (Motherwell and Wishaw)

 

 

15 Craigneuk Wishaw (Motherwell and Wishaw)

 

 

16 Craigend and Ruchazie (Glasgow Baillieston)

 

 

17 Howattshaws Road (Dumbarton)

 

 

18 Braidfauld (Glasgow Shettleston)

 

 

19 Keppochhill

 

 

20 Garthamlock, Auchinlea and Gartloch (Glasgow Baillieston)

 

 

21 North Barlanark and Easterhouse South (Glasgow Baillieston)

 

 

22 Govan and Linthouse (Glasgow Govan)

 

 

23 Inverness Merkinch (Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

 

 

24 Raploch (Stirling)

 

 

25 Toryglen and Oaklands (Glasgow Rutherglen)

 

 

26 Cranhill, Lightburn and Queenslie South (Glasgow Baillieston)

 

 

27 North Barlanark and Easterhouse South

 

 

28 Parkhead West and Barrowfield

 

 

29 Parkhead East and Braidfauld North (Glasgow Shettleston)

 

 

30 Cliftonville South (Coatbridge and Chryston)

 

 

31 Niddrie (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

 

 

32 Maryhill West (Glasgow Maryhill)

 

 

33 North Barlanark and Easterhouse South

 

 

34 Ardrossan Central (Cunninghame North)

 

 

35 Central Easterhouse

 

 

36 Craigend and Ruchazie

 

 

37 Maryhill East

 

 

38 Blackhill and Barmulloch East (Glasgow Springburn)

 

 

39 Greenend and Carnbroe (Coatbridge and Chryston)

 

 

40 Milton West (Glasgow Maryhill)

 

 

41 Cranhill, Lightburn and Queenslie South

 

 

42 Gallowgate North and Bellgrove (Glasgow Springburn)

 

 

43 Carntyne West and Haghill (Glasgow Springburn)

 

 

44 Carnwadric West (Glasgow Cathcart)

 

 

45 Dalmarnock (Glasgow Shettleston)

 

 

46 Altonhill South, Longpark and Hillhead (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

 

 

47 Milton East (Glasgow Maryhill)

 

 

48 Whitlawburn and Greenlees (Glasgow Rutherglen)

 

 

49 Irvine Castlepark South (Cunninghame South)

 

 

50 Old Shettleston and Parkhead North

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

P.S. None of us know anything about politics on this DG

[policemans whistle]

Thanks for the info re poorest area.I was informed that it was the late Donald Dewar's constituency Garscadden and as I was born and brought up there, I was sure he was wrong.

Edited September 11, 2011 by falkirk jag

[Meister Jag]

No problem mate, just noticed that number one and seven are the same place; surely shum mistake as they'd say in Private Eye. Might be worth running a check on Google but this was a cut 'n'paste from something I found. Glasgow and Paisley don't appear to come out of this very well; which is something that a number of us have done to death on this DG over the past while.

[Meister Jag]

No problem mate, just noticed that number one and seven are the same place; surely shum mistake as they'd say in Private Eye. Might be worth running a check on Google but this was a cut 'n'paste from something I found. Glasgow and Paisley don't appear to come out of this very well; which is something that a number of us have done to death on this DG over the past while.

 

Responding to my own posts, that's when you know Woody has had a late night ; or is it just that I'm off this week so have too much time on my hands.

 

FAO Falkirk Jag: Check out the Scottish Government website and this link for their areas of deprivation data: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD SG are good at publishing stuff but leave it to others to interpret the data (probably understandable as this usually highlights areas where they've not been able to gain much success). If you Google you'll also find that some of the tabloids - Sun, mail etc - will run stories that are normally aimed at discrediting whoever is in power.

 

Hope this helps.

[alx]

There's some useful financial info on this website.

 

http://www.oilofscotland.org/

 

In particular, there's a pdf of the infamous secret McCrone report on oil and independence in the 70s. If you were old enough to have political opinions in the 70s and ever said anything like 'we're too poor to be independent', 'its not our oil', 'the oil is running out' then this will be uncomfortable reading for you. If you're still saying things like this today, well.... get a grip basically.

 

http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf

 

Everybody should read this document before making their mind up for the independence referendum.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

The whole "it's our oil" is totally selfish. I don't mind sharing the wealth with our neighbours. It can be argued that without the UK we would not have an NHS and all the social reforms brought about post 1945. I don't see Ireland with an NHS.

[Blackpool Jags]

With respect, LLD, it could be argued very strongly that the only reason we still have an NHS is because of Scotland's role in traditionally returning Labour Governments to Westminster. The Tories were vehemently opposed to the formation of the NHS and are presently doing their damnedest to dismantle it. I believe that a Scottish NHS would be the envy of the UK and, if anything, would force a reversal of the Tories' current proposals to chop up the NHS and feed it off to private fat cats.

 

Politically, the Scottish psyche is quite a bit to the left of little England and that's why Scottish citizens enjoy a raft of social benefits not available to their English counterparts. In other words, Scotland puts its responsibilities for caring for the old, the young and the vulnerable before grubby profit; certainly more so, it seems, than right of centre pro-monarchy, empire-friendly England.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Blackpool Jags

[Allan Heron]

Politically, the Scottish psyche is quite a bit to the left of little England and that's why Scottish citizens enjoy a raft of social benefits not available to their English counterparts. In other words, Scotland puts its responsibilities for caring for the old, the young and the vulnerable before grubby profit; certainly more so, it seems, than right of centre pro-monarchy, empire-friendly England.

 

Interestingly (and at the risk of drifting off-topic) I read an article recently that was sourcing this difference in culture to the reformation which was very different in Scotland.

 

In England, it was a top-down job to meet Henry VIII's demands and, in reality, didn't impact much beyond who was head of the church. There were few amendments to the regular rituals.

 

Up here though it was very much a bottom-up movement which encouraged a community based collective approach.

 

Given the greater importance of religion and the churches in those days it's no great surprise that resulted in a longer term differential in culture between the two nations.

 

Or, to put it more simply, we are more left wing :-) Mind you, that is tempered with a strong, conservative (note small c) flavour.

[honved]

As an aside, have a look at the comments on this blog piece for some genuine nuttery. Craig Murray ex UK Ambassador

[Jaggernaut]

The whole "it's our oil" is totally selfish. I don't mind sharing the wealth with our neighbours. It can be argued that without the UK we would not have an NHS and all the social reforms brought about post 1945. I don't see Ireland with an NHS.

So why not share it with all the countries who have a coastline on the North Sea? If you limit it to the UK, it's just as shellfish.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Jaggernaut

[Guy Incognito]

With respect, LLD, it could be argued very strongly that the only reason we still have an NHS is because of Scotland's role in traditionally returning Labour Governments to Westminster. The Tories were vehemently opposed to the formation of the NHS and are presently doing their damnedest to dismantle it. I believe that a Scottish NHS would be the envy of the UK and, if anything, would force a reversal of the Tories' current proposals to chop up the NHS and feed it off to private fat cats.

 

Politically, the Scottish psyche is quite a bit to the left of little England and that's why Scottish citizens enjoy a raft of social benefits not available to their English counterparts. In other words, Scotland puts its responsibilities for caring for the old, the young and the vulnerable before grubby profit; certainly more so, it seems, than right of centre pro-monarchy, empire-friendly England.

Brilliantly put.

[Guy Incognito]

The whole "it's our oil" is totally selfish. I don't mind sharing the wealth with our neighbours.

So how much of Norway's oil wealth is shared with Sweden then? I don't see anyone accusing them of selfishness. The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise you could quite logically argue that any nation who has oil should share its revenue with the rest of the world (and there is fat chance of the likes of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia doing that).

 

I always think it is funny how the right-wing English media love to portray Scotland as a nation of malingerers and spongers when it has been the north sea oil revenue that has kept the entire UK afloat since the 1970s. You have to ask yourself why Margaret Thatcher, not one to suffer scroungers gladly, was always vehemently opposed to any kind of Scottish independence. Probably because she knew how important Scotland, and its oil, was to the rest of the UK.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Guy Incognito

[thechangingman]

So how much of Norway's oil wealth is shared with Sweden then? I don't see anyone accusing them of selfishness. The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise you could quite logically argue that any nation who has oil should share its revenue with the rest of the world (and there is fat chance of the likes of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia doing that).

 

I always think it is funny how the right-wing English media love to portray Scotland as a nation of malingerers and spongers when it has been the north sea oil revenue that has kept the entire UK afloat since the 1970s. You have to ask yourself why Margaret Thatcher, not one to suffer scroungers gladly, was always vehemently opposed to any kind of Scottish independence. Probably because she knew how important Scotland, and its oil, was to the rest of the UK.

the whole "our oil" thing is cobblers, the continental shelf act means it's british waters , was discovered/researched/managed by the uk government and was brought ashore and run from aberdeen purely for financial and logistical reasons , if it was pumped to england would it be their oil?

[Guy Incognito]

the whole "our oil" thing is cobblers, the continental shelf act means it's british waters , was discovered/researched/managed by the uk government and was brought ashore and run from aberdeen purely for financial and logistical reasons , if it was pumped to england would it be their oil?

Well, since Scotland isn't an independent country and is, currently, part of the UK then it would be British waters, wouldn't it? Hypothetically, if Scotland had been independent at the time the oil was discovered though then I don't think that part of the north sea would have been classed as British.

[alx]

the whole "our oil" thing is cobblers, the continental shelf act means it's british waters , was discovered/researched/managed by the uk government and was brought ashore and run from aberdeen purely for financial and logistical reasons , if it was pumped to england would it be their oil?

 

One of the themes of this thread is that people who are committed to either side of the argument probably won't change their minds. But I'm interested in factual information. There are several points here (in your post) that are technically incorrect. The scotland's oil website is one of the few that I know of that at least tries to put some actual info on line. I do concede that it's obviously from a nationalist viewpoint. If anyone else has good sources of info.. I would be really interested, but only if factual and not too partisan.