Up close, Scottish nationalism looks a lot like other nationalisms

Nationalism has many potential outcomes, but they are all based on a concern for ‘our people’ not ‘the people’.

Nationalism has many potential outcomes, but they are all based on a concern for ‘our people’ not ‘the people’

Scottish nationalism, we are always told, is civic, tolerant and open, different to other nationalisms. So welcoming in fact that many signed up to independence will argue that it isn’t really nationalism at all.

From Billy Bragg’s distance it all looks very cuddly. Up close though, finding safety in numbers through a process of division, it looks a lot less pleasant.

Taking just a few examples: demonstrators gather outside the BBC and unfurl banners denouncing people as ‘anti–Scottish’, claiming that only the ‘corrupt media’ stops people supporting Independence.

A writer, Alan Bissett, prominent enough to be invited to perform to the conference of the governing nationalist party, describes current constitutional arrangements as ‘Subjugation; cultural, political and economic’. The acme of liberal independence supporting commentators, Gerry Hassan, expresses satisfaction that the Scots ‘are becoming a people’ and ‘developing voice in its deepest sense’.

It’s easy to recognise tropes here familiar from other, less favourably looked on nationalisms. Principally that only by asserting ourselves as a nation can we throw off alien influences and truly be ourselves. Perhaps then, Scotish nationalism isn’t all that exceptional after all.

Responding to JK Rowling’s endorsement of a No vote, a writer from the ‘National Collective’ declares Scotland is ‘a State of Mind’. Independence is all about ‘the story we choose to believe in’.

How very open, how very welcoming; anyone can be Scottish, provided they share our state of mind.

Except this, naturally, involves embracing independence. The status of those of us unwilling to do this isn’t quite spelled out. Neither is the corollary; if anyone can be Scottish by sharing ‘our’ state of mind. Also, what if, like myself, you don’t? If the ‘story you choose to believe in’ is a multi- or even non-national one, are you somehow less Scottish?

This is as much about exclusion as it is inclusion. And it is this process, more than independence that is developing momentum. Robin McAlpine, director of the Jimmy Reid Foundation and one of the gurus of the Radical Independence Campaign, used to describe non Indyfan lefties as ‘fellow travellers‘ for whom they should ‘keep a seat at the table’. He now issues dire warnings that ‘We are not afraid of you, we are going to win and history will remember you for how you behaved’.

Of course, all of the above matter much less than the SNP and the Scottish government. Recently, Nicola Sturgeon drew a distinction between ‘essentialist’ and ‘utilitarian’ nationalists. This isn’t anything to do with fundamental outlook, just a tactical difference about the timing of state formation. The deputy first minister went on to explain, in a phrase redolent of Michael Gove on steroids, that she wanted a new Scottish constitution to ’embody the values of the nation’.

What those values might be were (thankfully) left undefined. Add to this the vaguely sinister sounding intentions of education secretary Mike Russell that the views of scientists on research bodies ‘might be aligned’ with those of the Scottish government.

A more serious indicator of what might be in store was given when Ed Balls and George Osborne, invoking the national interest of the rest of the UK, said they didn’t support a currency union with an independent Scotland. They were immediately decried by the First Minister and his supporters as ‘bullies’ ganging up on Scotland.

In the howls of anguish that followed, it was taken as read that assertions by the UK couldn’t be valid in themselves, they were merely attacks on Scotland. The ‘Scottish’ interest wasn’t just deemed to be the most important or priority viewpoint, but the only legitimately held opinion.

The economics or even politics of the situation (eg If Balls or Osborne were interested in having a supranational banking arrangement deciding governmental borrowing limits, they would have joined the Euro) were abandoned in favour of the financially illiterate spasm of ‘It’s our pound too’.

Stripped to its essence, it was a case of the leader of a nationalist party building support for a policy by saying foreigners were attacking the country. If that looks like it has worked then don’t think it will stop on September 19. Nationalist ends won’t be willed in the referendum without embedding nationalist means to sustain them afterwards.

Clearly the SNP aren’t some sort of Jobbik style proto fascists. But suggesting that ‘Technocratic Administrative Boundary Adjustment’ or ‘Blood and Soil’ are the only two possible settings on the nationalist dial isn’t right either.

Nationalism has many potential outcomes, but they are all predicated on defining and separating, with concern for ‘our people’ not ‘the people’. Real progressive politics does the opposite. People at home or in the places that will shortly be abroad if there is a yes vote in September would do well to remember that.

Stephen Low is a Labour Party member and part of the Red Paper Collective

Like this article? Left Foot Forward relies on support from readers to sustain our progressive journalism. Can you become a supporter for £5 a month?

268 Responses to “Up close, Scottish nationalism looks a lot like other nationalisms”

  1. Guest

    Ah, so you’re committed to only having rich people affording to be in Parliament. Well well!

  2. Guest

    I have, hence my post.

    Your lack of knowledge of Scottish law is also just sad.

  3. Guest

    No, Scotland is a region. Your denial of the Acts of Union is simply lashing out against the truth. There is no “partner” involved, Parliament is sovereign.

    Lots of countries work that way and have federal systems, I note, such as Germany. It’s entirely workable.

  4. Guest

    It would need to be negotiated, like everything else, and Ireland is the strong, strong precedent.

    “All welcome” is something which would be up for debate when the Scottish constitution was set, as well, and if Scotland joined the EU and hence had an external Schengen boundary, Scottish people would be subject to the same rules as everyone else in the EU here, and the same in reverse.

    You are trying to set things which can’t be set.

  5. Leon Wolfeson

    Indeed. I note the very strong trend among younger Scottish voters for maintaining the Union, and that breakups often case major regret – there is considerable such among the Czech and Slovakian populations, for instance.

    And that’s without the issues Scotland would face, such as an external Schengen border.

  6. Guest

    Your post would? I see. Well, Alice, that’s your choice.

    And for one thing, the Nordic System. Which has a cross-party dedication to People’s Socialism which is utterly lacking in Scotland, and a subsequent reluctance to make revolutionary changes to the social contract.

    That you see facts as being “obsessed”..how dare it be said! How dare the truth come into this!

  7. Guest

    No, Lord Blagger, you are an adult and have full responsibility for your actions, criminal.

  8. Gary Scott

    As I said, it has already been agreed by Westminster that dual/multiple nationality is possible. That in itself confirms free movement across ‘the border’. As with Greenland when it became independent of Denmark it would still be a part of EU until it left. Juncker has stated Scotland would be a ‘special case’ and Westminster has confirmed it would do its best to ensure full membership from day one of independence. NB being part of the EU applies to the country and not the people living in Scotland. As stated about nationality they would, in any event, continues to be EU citizens. This is the reality. Scotland’s population has either dropped or remained stagnant for decades, its situation being very different from the overall UK. Regardless of Schengen there is freedom of movement within EU, Schengen only really benefits land borders. Arriving in UK by air, or even travelling internally, requires ID and only valid passports are now accepted. There is unlikely to ever be an issue as immigration EU wide means that if ANY country accepts non EU residents as citizens they would then have the right to live and work in any other country. This HAS been misused, notably by Malta ‘selling’ passports but UK has since followed suit. There are also issues for rUK taking citizens from Commonwealth countries under the Commonwealth agreement, this skews UK immigration figures as there a sizeable bloc living/working ‘temporarily’ in UK (usually England). There are problems but they are a lot smaller for Scotland as we don’t have large numbers coming from overseas to live, like I said, the population is stagnant after a long period of dropping numbers.

  9. Hettie

    There will be a Constitutional Convention where interested parties …not just political parties can put forward their views, I suggest you go to the Scottish Government site and click on Publications

    The National Collective have been touring Scotland organising events where people are invited to write down what they want their Indy Scotland to be to imagine. Young and old.
    It is exciting to witness a different way of “doing” politics along side the conventional meetings.

    I was a Labour (old ) party activist and I saw the way the party was going during the miner’s strike, I said at the time that if Kinnock continued to take the party in the way I saw it going then we would end up like America with both Cons and Lab so similar that the people would become disillusioned and disinclined to vote. I had no idea that Blair and co would be so ruthless. New Labour is the result and I could no more vote for them than I would the LibDems
    There is something rotten at the heart of the British State and I think Independence for Scotland is way long overdue.

  10. Hettie

    Centuries of democracy!!!! The franchise grudgingly meted after pressure and agitation It took over 200 years….People died to get us the vote.
    Deny my own policies!!! Whit???

    Back to the SNP. Minority government was the norm in the Scottish parliament until the SNP won the last election on the referendum ticket. The VOTERS tactically voted and gave them an overall majority for just that purpose. Post indy it will be back to normal with people voting for whomsoever they will. And a lot of them WONT be voting for the SNP
    Now I hope this clarifies things for you. Just one more thing, everything is not black and white, rather more like multiple shades of grey. Sometimes there is a need for pragmatism but I don’t think you’d get that either.

  11. John Mitchell

    On 25% of the popular vote on a 50% turnout across Scotland. It’s not what I would call a majority but neither is the Conservative vote at a UK level, around 33%. The SNP offer on independence was conveniently tucked away within their 2011 manifesto and is not immediately recognizable if you just happened to read the first few pages and lose interest.

    The PR system is designed to build coalitions, not minority governments which are typically weak and subject to either working through certain aspects such as economic policy which the SNP did with the Scottish Conservatives during their 2007 to 2011 administration, or calling another election. The Tories at UK level could have gone down that road at Westminster but didn’t because they didn’t want to face another immediate election.

  12. Hettie

    Well now why don’t you enlighten me!

  13. John Mitchell

    Wings over Scotland and Stuart Campbell has zero credibility to me. Personally attacking your opponents as he does in an insulting manner crosses the line. It’s not journalism, in certain cases it’s electronic bullying and baiting which is very unhelpful to the debate which has been divisive enough already.

    Parties of the “left” don’t exist anymore in the strictest terms. As you suggest the Greens are probably the only party that falls into that category but are more irrelevant in Scotland than UKIP who in the past three by-elections have finished above the Greens and beat them in the European Elections in Scotland also. Which suggests that Scotland isn’t as “left wing” as is portrayed. New Labour did get a lot of things wrong and when Tony Blair was leader especially, inequality was not a concern.

  14. Andy Ellis

    No it isn’t – a typical troll tactic. You’re perfectly entitled to your view on a subject, just not to require the rest of us to accept it as factual when it patently isn’t. International law does stand, and it doesn’t support what passes for your argument.

    I’m not denying anyone anything. any independent nation is entitled to an EEZ; the issue in relation to what the EEZ of Shetland would be either as an independent state, or if it remains part of the UK. Again in both cases it is abundantly clear what the position would be for bot, and again it doesn’t support your position. Come back to me when you’ve done some actual research, huh?

  15. Andy Ellis

    Well, feel free to provide some actual evidence to support your woo-woo views, or even better engage in actual debate and show where I and Mahdi Zahraa (and the International Court of Justice quoted in his article) have all gotten it wrong, and the weight of evidence supporting your case….. well? I look forward to you reasoned response 😉

  16. Leithalyak

    Is England also a region?

  17. orkers

    Scotland is a country. Unions aren’t indissoluble. England may have catched Scotland, but she can’t hold her fast any longer. The Edinburgh agreement, by it’s very existence, recognises that Scotland is a country.and has the right to hold a referendum to leave the Union. You may not have noticed, but the UK doesn’t have a federal system and is extremely unlikely ever to have one. Too little and too late.

  18. orkers

    You could glue his eye lids open and try an force feed the facts into his mind, but an entity that doesn’t want to listen to verifiable facts will always act in this manner. It’s a lost cause. Never truer the saying, that you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

  19. Peter A Bell

    Yet more gibberish. The stuff about my “distaste for the British left” is clearly something you got from those screeching voices in your head. Unless, of course, you are dumb enough to imagine that British Labour represents the “British left”. In which case you need to put those flares and kipper ties in the Oxfam bag and drag yourself into the 21st century.

    The political left in Scotland has common cause with the left in the rest of the UK. Our common enemy is the British state. But the left in Scotland is strong, having found a new voice and a new vigour in the course of the referendum campaign.

    The left in England is not in such a healthy state. But there is good reason to hope that a Yes vote in the referendum will trigger a resurgence of progressive political activism south of the border.

    A border which is very real no matter how much you scream and stamp your feet. The assertion that Scotland is merely a region is just Little Englander ignorance. Scotland is a nation. Even if that had ever been in doubt, your political master, David Cameron, confirmed Scotland’s status as a nation when he signed the Edinburgh Agreement.

  20. Guest

    Ah, so the truth is, to you, woo-woo.

    And I’d need someone to engage in debate with, rather than someone who posts random google docs and thinks it is an argument.#

    Given your attitude to the truth, I have better things to do.

  21. Guest

    Except you just outlined your plan for making non-believers “drink”. What you WILL do if you get power, no doubt.

    Thanks for the SNP party statement.

  22. Guest

    “No it isn’t – a typical troll tactic”

    Yes, your constant saying “no” is. And yes, you are entitled to an opinion – but you are spinning it as the law, as you deny facts and scream that the alw on EEZ’s is magically null and void.

    And of course you want to try to desperately silence me, demanding that the plain truth of your bitter hatred for democracy and self-determination for anyone else be seen.


    I’m starting to think you are, yes.

  23. Guest

    “meted”. I see.

    And yes, I’m sure you think that denying people the vote with violence is magically good or whatever, given your denial of your own posts.

    Your SNP propaganda is old. And of course you always think that democracy needs to be “pragmatically” crushed, and that basic rights are conditional.

  24. Guest

    Start with reading the Acts of Union.

  25. Guest

    Scotland is a region. The Acts of Union exist, as you talk vote-rigging.

    Your hatred of the UK shines through, as you lie and lie.

  26. Guest

    Possible | What will be decided.

    Moreover, no, dual nationality is no guarantee of free movement. Junker does not get to decide, as much as you’d like him to.

    The CTA is not in Schengen, you can’t get around that. (ANd I’m not sure why you are talking about populations..)

  27. Guest

    Ah, so “realities” (i.e. your hate of the British) dictates your vote rigging, and you hate the “idealism” of basic rights. Well.

  28. Guest

    …yes. Of course.

  29. Guest

    “Yet more gibberish.”

    You are posting that, yes, as you think everyone has your voices in your head. And no, I am not as dumb as you, given your evident belief in those voices which are telling you Labour is left wing or whatever.

    Currently, there is a common cause, but the Scottish nationalists want to break that. The enemy is not Britain and it’s state, i..e the British, as you are saying.

    The left in Scotland are tools of the SNP, which is centralist at best. Your running away will encourage the right in Britain to step up their campaign, and will drag you down too unless you disassociate Scotland’s economy.

    Your magical border, which you are trying to impose, shows your goals – barriers and limits, blocking workers.

    The Acts of Union are clear, and it seems Cameron may have made a mistake which needs rectifying or else it could invalidate the referendum…that’d be unfortunate.

  30. Andy Ellis

    Anybody that can read can look at the evidence. You’re not being attached for having a different opinion. you’re being corrected for making ridiculous unsupported statement with no actual evidence to back them up, which IS the strategy of frothing britnats as your No Thanks logo amply supports; if it walks like a duck, and quacks… guess what…?

  31. Andy Ellis

    Your relationship with the truth seems tenuous to say the least Leon Wolfeson. Feel free to come back and actually debate on the evidence. An EJIL article, peer reviewed with extensive footnotes and references to the case law is hardly some random google mined opinion. the fact you haven’t come back with any actual counter arguments, still less back up in the form of evidence, suggests that you’d rather rely on “truthy” statements you wish were true, in the absence of any actual evidence supporting your desperately weak argument.

    Feel free to get back to us when you’ve done some more work; otherwise probably best to stay under your bridge and stop embarrassing yourself further?

  32. Andy Ellis

    But according to your last post above Leon, you had better things to do… and yet like a dog returning to its own vomit, you return! What on earth for? You obviously haven’t got any more in the way of evidence. I’m not spinning anything… I’m simply pointing out the accepted position under current international law. What “facts” is it you think I’m denying? I’ve said no such thing as that the law on EEZ’s is null and void… quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps you have reading difficulties? Or perhaps you can’t see properly through the spittle flecked outrage of your previous evidence-free posts?

    I have no interest in silencing you; rather the reverse. Your lack of evidence simply shows you have no case. Your constant ad hominem in lieu of actual debate betray the desperate weakness of your debating skills, and the fact that you have no actual back up for your position. Why else would you try to insist I hate democracy and self determination for others, when the opposite is the case?

    If Shetlanders want independence and vote for it, or indeed to stay in the UK, I’d fully support them; same goes for various other peoples around the world. The fact remains that the delineation of their territorial waters and EEZ’s is governed by international law, agreements and negotiations between the parties. NONE of these support the case you were trying to make, assuming you do actually HAVE a point…? No…? Thought not…!

  33. Andy Ellis

    So all the other NATO member except rUK and France are hypocritical too then? For all you know post a Yes vote Scots may not even vote to be part of NATO, but you can hardly use non-nuclear status as a stick to beat either the SNP or any other pro-indy campaigners with given all the other NATO states except the USA, France and rUK won’t have them either! Facts, dear boy…!

  34. John Mitchell

    Scotland had the chance to show their intention of wanting to change the FPTP electoral system in 2011 with the alternative vote referendum. Scotland, as the UK did, unanimously rejected reform.

    Every time the nationalists repeat the same argument of “Scotland doesn’t get the government it voted for”, it can be pointed out that Scotland had a chance to indicate it wanted electoral reform at UK level and that the majority of voters in Scotland turned it down.

  35. John Mitchell

    There are at least another five in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Holland and Turkey that house nuclear weapons in their territory as NATO members.

    The SNP are rightly attacked for their hypocritical stance seeing as they’re supposedly wanting to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons and yet also claim that a “yes” vote will do so whilst wanting to enter NATO. Which doesn’t appear to be realistic.

  36. Dorothy (Dot) Commie

    Yep! Like yer National German Socialist Worker’s Party (Nazi Party). Nationalism can be soft and cuddly (like our present UK Green Party) or hard and downright anti-people like Margaret Thatcher’s ‘There is no such thing as society’ Tory Party. Lol

  37. Jim O'Rorke

    So I’m accused of being illiterate now. So I don’t have a PhD, and I guess that’s where your sensitivity in this matter arises from. No doubt you worked hard for it it and it irks that working class folk like me, with few qualifications, are too feckless and stupid to see the right behind your arguments. We need people like you to free us from the yolk of English oppression; we’re too gullible to do it for ourselves. So, thanks for correcting me Andy; I’m tugging my forelock as I write this, in appreciation of your elucidation. I’m a human being with values that I try to live by Andy and they’re practised without conditions. I commend this to you.

  38. Calzo

    I am British. And I will continue to be so after independence. Rigging? Think you’ll have to explain that one. And while your at it maybe you can explain what basic rights would be getting denied by self governance?

  39. Peter A Bell

    I’m content to let others judge that load of drivel for themselves.

  40. Andy Ellis

    Spare us the passive aggressive Scottish cringe Jim – it’s about as convincing as your back-up arguments…oh wait, you don’t actually HAVE any back up for your arguments at all do you? This isn’t some game of “who is more working class than who”; your “I’m just a humble uneducated No voter, and you’re being nast to me” schtick just won’t wash. Grow up!

    You weren’t accused of being illiterate, but of not having read or researched anything about the issues your were spouting off on. Not reading because you can’t be bothered (or more likely because you’re scared it will challenge your intellectually lazy adherence to everything the No camp and mainstream media tell you) isn’t the same as being illiterate. Similarly, from your earlier post, you weren’t personally accused of being a frothing britnat, you were accused of parroting scares put about by frothing britnats. Do you actually read the comments before you launch into the outraged victim claiming?

    It isn’t a sin to be ignorant Jim. It is a sin to be proud of it.

  41. Andy Ellis

    Why is it unrealistic? The Spaniards used to host US nuclear weapons (even before they were part of NATO) and now as NATO members, they no longer do so. Canada hosted US nuclear weapons until 1984, but no longer does so, and Greece until 2001 but no longer does so.

    Perhaps all these states (and the majority of NATO states who refuse to host nuclear missiles) are being hypocritical, but being part of a nuclear alliance doesn’t oblige you to be a nuclear host….so why are you holding the SNP or a future independent Scotland, to a different standard? Seems like the hypocrisy is on the side of those making your argument if anything.

    Interesting thoughts on this from Will McLeod:


  42. John Mitchell

    NATO is a nuclear alliance, that’s what I was suggesting was hypocritical in the nationalist argument and not being a non-nuclear state.

    Canada, Greece and Spain are the exceptions. I believe Germany and Holland no longer wish to keep the nuclear weapons but they also realise that in order for this to change they would need the agreement of all 28 NATO member states.

    This doesn’t factor in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which is operated by countries such as Norway that don’t house nuclear weapons.

  43. Jim O'Rorke

    wow, there’s no stopping you Andy, is there. You just can’t help yourself. So certain of the “right” of your point of view you can brook no other, your mind permanently closed to other opportunities, points of view, concerns etc. Do you attack everyone who has a different point of view to you? Do you never discuss? What are you afraid of? The only thing that scares me is the fundamentalist, closed mind attitude that I perceive from your posts, and that from many other Yes supporters I’ve read and heard. I really do worry what an “independent” (although not from the EU, Bank of England or NATO) Scotland would be like if this was the mind-set of those who would lead us. Try this Andy; I’ve no doubt Scotland could survive as an independent nation; I agree with the need for self-determination at a more local level. I just believe that the current set-up is best for our country.OK?

  44. Gary Scott

    Any citizen of the EU can live and work in any other part of the EU. Schengen is the removal of border checks for EU citizens. In UK we have one land border between UK and ROI, this is covered instead by CTA. If you are a UK citizen therefore you have free movement and would continue to do so. If UK decided to erect a land border against Scotland, both in the EU, it could, but why would it? Why spend millions to slow down existing trade? Population is important, Scotland needs to attract people in, unlike UK overall. Allegedly UK is worried about Scots immigration policy and this is the reason for considering borders. However, anyone accepted as a citizen of an EU state can move to any other, border checks do not prevent this. Talk of borders is purely to give worry to those considering a YES vote. Of course the EU President cannot make decisions for the whole EU, just as the previous President could not. None of the states have said they will vote against Scotland, including Spain and UK. Scotland is already compliant so I’m not sure why anyone would think there’s a problem (see my remark about Greenland). Remember, its not policy to remove citizenship, so Scots would remain citizens. The nightmare scenario envisaged goes against stated UK policies.

  45. Andy Ellis

    Seems like you are making my case for me, since there appear to be a number of different policies toward physically hosting nukes &/or allowing them in your harbours or territorial waters? I still don’t see how you can label the SNP as hypocritical, but have no issues with other non-nuclear NATO states essentially doing the same thing.

    The question is whether NATO would accept a totally nuclear free Scotland; of all we know they might, as it would be a better alternative to the Scots not being in NATO at all. Of course, there is no guarantee that current SNP policy will become the policy of an independent Scotland anyway. I imagine most Scots would be quite happy being part of NATO (which is no doubt behind the SNP change of policy on the matter), and seeing Trident removed from the Clyde.

  46. Andy Ellis

    Jim, look at your original post; this isn’t about all the other items you quote above is it? You make specific claims about what the people of the Northern Isles want, i.e. you state they are unlikely to want to be part of an independent Scotland. OK…where’s your evidence? Is it something you just “think”, or wish was true..? Or do you have any evidence to back it up? I strongly suspect you don’t, because in the research I did in relation to the oil reserves/EEZ issue I looked pretty hard.

    The cold fact is, the little evidence there is on the matter suggests the exact opposite of what you originally claim…but you carry on in your belief that I’m wrong, and you’re right. Fair enough, but don’t expect the rest of us to fall for faith based position.

    If you have any actual evidence, polls, articles, newspaper reports etc it shouldn’t be that hard to produce the evidence. Nobody is denying your right to an opinion, what is open to question your assertion that your opinion on this specific matter is right when all the evidence suggests otherwise.

    I’m quite open to a discussion Jim, but I’m not wasting any more time on someone like you who isn’t debating in good faith 7 simply repeats a faith based position on an issue they are demonstrably wrong about.

  47. Jim O'Rorke

    Where’s your evidence Andy? You skew a poll to suit your own argument. This poll stated that 82% of those asked would call themselves Scottish; nothing to do with whether or not they would remain part of Scotland. There has been a petition sitting with the Scottish Parliament for 3 months now demanding referenda in the Northern and Western Isles in the event of a Yes vote, one of the options demanded is to remain in the UK. Anyway, my original question was, “where does separatism end?” Any takers?

  48. Andy Ellis




    The poll in front of the Scottish parliament is reported only to have around 20% of the names from actual residents of the islands – very convincing!!

    Separatism ends where it is sensible for it to do so; this isn’t “Passport to Pimlico”. If the vote is Yes and you don’t like it you can always try and declare UDI for your house, but the reductio ad absurd am argument of “where will it all end” is just another tired and discredited britnat scare story. Much like the non-issue of independence for the Northern Isles, or staying with the UK in the event of Scottish independence…you have zero evidence of amy appetite for either.

    We’re still waiting….

  49. orkers

    Give it a rest Leon. Your mind is closed.

  50. Jim O'Rorke

    It’s thanks to attitudes like yours Andy that I believe there will be an overwhelming victory for Better Together. Somebody poses a question, sincerely; you can only sneer and hector and make quotes in Latin. Thanks for the links though. Believe it or not (you won’t) I’ve already been there. Ever thought about a career in sales?

Leave a Reply