Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Scotland as A Viable Nation-State

  1. #1
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Thumbs Up Scotland as A Viable Nation-State

    http://www.hfienberg.com/scots/490independence.html



    As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any condition be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honors that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

    Declaration of Arbroath, 1320

    People have been convinced that "Britain or the UK is part of the natural order of things." What is required is some "intellectual courage to think beyond that." (Scott, P 56) One must approach this debate and ascertain the viability of Scotland as an independent nation. This essay will deal with the various dynamics of an independent Scotland: foreign relations and international law; economics; the environment; defense; and a comparative context.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Š■eling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 @ 08:46 PM
    Age
    38
    Posts
    330
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Scotland as a viable nation-state

    There is no doubt in my mind of the viability of a seperate Scottish state. As an English Nationalist I welcome it and give my full support to my fellow nationalists. The real question is how it will come about, and under what circumstances.

    First forget the SNP they are socialists through and through. What "nationalist" party seriously believes that blacks and Asians are Scots? What "nationalist" party would break from London just to hand over power to Brussells? No nationalist party, that's who. I suspect they are a Westminster ploy to control true Scottish nationalists. They are used by Labour as a tool to keep England at bay. Funny how Scotland has a Parliament in this so called "Union" but England does not. Scotland needs a true nationalist party. And to be honest independence will only become reality once nationalism is on the increase through out the island and Europe. At the moment the sad fact is that probably 90% of whites do not care about race, let alone nationality.

    On an economic note I think the Scots are placing a lot of faith in oil. First they some how believe that England would hand over the fields to them, not going to happen, and second they surely know that it is only viable for the next 30 years. After that then what? Scotland has some largely untapped resources that could be exploited but she faces the same problem that most nations face in a globalised economy i.e. lack of control. Free trade prevents national control of an economy and allows corporations to dictate terms. Scotland, along with the rest of the union, is no longer a real industrial power. I don't care what anyone says service sector economies are not going to be a long term stable investment. If you don't manufacture and produce goods, you have no leverage. For any nation to thrive it needs to protect it's own workers and industries. This is not a call for autarky, just a statement of fact.

    So as I said Scottish nationalism is viable, but not in the present circumstances. The Marxist-multiculturalist ideologies of most of the western world and the globalised economies mean that nationalism will have a hard time coming back. If it does not we can forget any real sense of independence.
    Wita sceal ge■yldig, ne sceal no to hatheort ne to hrŠdwyrde, ne to wac wiga ne to wanhydig, ne to forht ne to fŠgen, ne to feohgifre ne nŠfre gielpes to georn, Šr he geare cunne. Beorn sceal gebidan, ■onne he beot sprice­, o■■Št collenfer­ cunne gearwe hwider hre■ra gehygd hweorfan wille.

    http://www.odinic-rite.org/index2.html
    http://www.steadfasttrust.org.uk/

  3. #3
    Sideways to the Sun
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Milesian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 18th, 2008 @ 04:55 PM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Aileach
    Gender
    Occupation
    Rebel
    Politics
    Anti-Neophilia
    Religion
    Traditional Catholicism
    Posts
    2,745
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: Scotland as a viable nation-state

    Quote Originally Posted by Engledrihten
    There is no doubt in my mind of the viability of a seperate Scottish state. As an English Nationalist I welcome it and give my full support to my fellow nationalists.
    True healthy nationalism. To be applauded.
    Of course, all authentic nationalists support English nationalism as well as that of the other nations currently under the boot of the Union.


    The real question is how it will come about, and under what circumstances.

    First forget the SNP they are socialists through and through. What "nationalist" party seriously believes that blacks and Asians are Scots? What "nationalist" party would break from London just to hand over power to Brussells? No nationalist party, that's who.
    Absolutely agreed.

    I suspect they are a Westminster ploy to control true Scottish nationalists. They are used by Labour as a tool to keep England at bay.
    An interesting possibility that I hadn't considered before. Not impossible.

    Funny how Scotland has a Parliament in this so called "Union" but England does not.
    Certainly, all things being equal it is hardly fair. I suspect the reason is because neither the Welsh assembly nor the Scottish Executive wield any real power. They are token councils set up with a very limited range of powers. Meanwhile real power is still wielded from Westminister. Thus, England has no actual need of one of these faux parliaments unless we manage to achieve the real thing.


    Scotland needs a true nationalist party. And to be honest independence will only become reality once nationalism is on the increase through out the island and Europe. At the moment the sad fact is that probably 90% of whites do not care about race, let alone nationality.
    Agreed. Or until the oil & gas runs out, which brings us to...

    On an economic note I think the Scots are placing a lot of faith in oil. First they some how believe that England would hand over the fields to them, not going to happen, and second they surely know that it is only viable for the next 30 years. After that then what?
    that is an understandable concern. However, it is worth bearing in mind some things - first, Scotland has a population which numbers less than the city of London. The wealth brought in by North Sea oil & gas would be tremendous for such a small country. Secondly, Scotland is not solely dependent on oil/gas. It has a thriving modern economy including a hi-tech electronics industry (Silicon Glen), textile manufacturing, aerospace component manufacturing and various other modern secondary industries, as well as a robust service sector which is greatly augmented by the fact that it is a global tourist destination. A wise government would make plans for the oil money. By using it to improve the infrastructure and investing with an eye to post-oil Scotland, there is no reason why the money should dry up once the oil does.

    Scotland has some largely untapped resources that could be exploited but she faces the same problem that most nations face in a globalised economy i.e. lack of control. Free trade prevents national control of an economy and allows corporations to dictate terms.
    True, global corporations hold the power that national governments once did.

    Scotland, along with the rest of the union, is no longer a real industrial power. I don't care what anyone says service sector economies are not going to be a long term stable investment. If you don't manufacture and produce goods, you have no leverage. For any nation to thrive it needs to protect it's own workers and industries. This is not a call for autarky, just a statement of fact.
    Good point

    So as I said Scottish nationalism is viable, but not in the present circumstances. The Marxist-multiculturalist ideologies of most of the western world and the globalised economies mean that nationalism will have a hard time coming back. If it does not we can forget any real sense of independence.
    Of course, I don't think that the break-up of the Union will be the end of our problems. Withdrawl from the EU is also necessary, and even then it is virtually impossible to withdraw from the clutches of world finance and globalism.
    That said, nationalists are still bound to support the national soveriegnty of authentic nations. The restoration of nationhood to England, Scotland and Wales cannot be achieved without putting the Union out of its misery. But you are quite right, that it is only a small part of a struggle which basically has to challenge the current global order

  4. #4
    Senior Member Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, December 25th, 2006 @ 12:52 PM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Scotland Scotland
    Location
    Northern Briton
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Politics
    Preservation and revival
    Religion
    Animist
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Scotland as a viable nation-state

    Quote Originally Posted by Engledrihten
    On an economic note I think the Scots are placing a lot of faith in oil. First they some how believe that England would hand over the fields to them, not going to happen, and second they surely know that it is only viable for the next 30 years. After that then what? Scotland has some largely untapped resources that could be exploited but she faces the same problem that most nations face in a globalised economy i.e. lack of control. Free trade prevents national control of an economy and allows corporations to dictate terms. Scotland, along with the rest of the union, is no longer a real industrial power. I don't care what anyone says service sector economies are not going to be a long term stable investment. If you don't manufacture and produce goods, you have no leverage. For any nation to thrive it needs to protect it's own workers and industries. This is not a call for autarky, just a statement of fact.
    Firstly i have to say that its not up to England to decide what happens to Scottish oil. If Scotland ceases to be a part of the Union then the United Kingdom (not England) no longer has a say on Scottish territories and her resources.
    Secondly of course oil is important but we surely would not make our nation dependant on it.
    Anyway oil prices fluctuate and with oil prices as high as they are now they would be very profitable for our nation.
    Unfortunately most folk, Scottish or British, wont see any benefits from it since Maggie privitised our oil fields.
    Since 1997 when labour came to government Scottish oil revenues has reached more than ú32 billion, most of which the British people have not seen.
    In Scotland most people who want to see Scottish oil being brought back under Scottish control dont want Scotland to be economically dependant on oil by having our budget rely alot on unstable revenues. Instead all we hear mostly is about the creation of a North Sea Oil Fund. Similar to one in Norway. Where revenues would go into a fund for future generations, investment in renewable energy so our country isnt energy reliant on the oil, also to cover any budgetary deficits.
    http://www.snp.org/policies/northseaoil/
    Its estimated that there is still well over a trillion pounds worth of oil and gas in the North Sea, that would set up Scotland well for our future.
    This way our budget and our energy needs would not be dependant on oil revenues.
    As for our energy needs, there are already intiatives to use wave and tidal energy to provide 10% of our electricity. Tidal wave energy alone could potentially meet all our energy needs. Although obviously that wont happen.
    http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1906052005
    12% of our energy comes from hydro stations. im sure you know we have alot of rain and rivers and lochs
    Scotland is one of the windiest countries in Europe. A quarter of Euproes wind resources are in Scotland. There are 25 wind power projects in Scotland presently and over 70 projects waiting to be started.
    Although the Scottish Executives plans are for renewable energy to provide 40% of our energy needs by 2020, our potential is much greater.
    Renewable energy in Scotland can potentially have the capacity to meet 75% of the entire UK's demand, almost 10 times that of Scotland alone.
    http://www.swlg.org.uk/WLN54A.htm
    http://www.scottishrenewables.com/home.asp
    However as things stand it seems like not only do you steal Scottish oil but most of our renewable energy will go to english homes through the national grid.
    An independant Scotland can provide ALL its energy demands from renewable energy thereby not being reliant on oil and put its oil revenues into a fund for Scotland.
    All this can be realised however without Scotland ceasing from being a part of the Union by giving Scotland greater autonomy to control our own energy grid and our resources. After all just because we could control our own oil doesnt mean we wouldnt be a part of the UK. You dont need our oil or our wind or sea or rain for us to be a part of the Union, do you?
    A! Fredome is a noble thing
    Fredome mays man to haiff liking.
    Fredome all solace to man giffis,
    He levys at es that frely levys.
    A noble hart may haiff nane es
    Na ellys nocht that may him ples
    Gyff fredome failyhe, for fre liking
    Is yharnyt our all other thing.
    Na he that ay has levyt fre
    May nocht knaw weill the propyrte
    The angyr na the wrechyt dome
    That is couplyt to foule thyrldome,
    Bot gyff he had assayit it.
    Than all perquer he suld it wyt,
    And suld think fredome mar to prys
    Than all the gold in warld that is.
    Thus contrar thingis evermar
    Discoveryngis off the tother ar,


    Scots is our mither tung; an gin we dinna hain it,
    thare naebody gaun tae hain it for us.


    Scots is our mother tongue; and if we do not preserve it,
    nobody will preserve it for us.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Š■eling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 @ 08:46 PM
    Age
    38
    Posts
    330
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Scotland as a viable nation-state

    Firstly i have to say that its not up to England to decide what happens to Scottish oil. If Scotland ceases to be a part of the Union then the United Kingdom (not England) no longer has a say on Scottish territories and her resources.
    The problem being here that it is legally not Scottish or English oil. It is British oil. There is no marine boundary between Scotland and England, which is why I said that the Scottish should expect that England will want it's cut of the oil revenue.

    In Scotland most people who want to see Scottish oil being brought back under Scottish control dont want Scotland to be economically dependant on oil by having our budget rely alot on unstable revenues. Instead all we hear mostly is about the creation of a North Sea Oil Fund. Similar to one in Norway. Where revenues would go into a fund for future generations, investment in renewable energy so our country isnt energy reliant on the oil, also to cover any budgetary deficits.
    Again the problem is that Scotland is not an independent state and its "Parliament" has no say on who runs the oil franchise.

    Its estimated that there is still well over a trillion pounds worth of oil and gas in the North Sea, that would set up Scotland well for our future.This way our budget and our energy needs would not be dependant on oil revenues.
    It would if, like Milesian said, a Scottish government invested it wisely.

    However as things stand it seems like not only do you steal Scottish oil but most of our renewable energy will go to english homes through the national grid.
    I don't steal anything.

    An independant Scotland can provide ALL its energy demands from renewable energy thereby not being reliant on oil and put its oil revenues into a fund for Scotland.
    Good. I hope it can.

    All this can be realised however without Scotland ceasing from being a part of the Union by giving Scotland greater autonomy to control our own energy grid and our resources. After all just because we could control our own oil doesnt mean we wouldnt be a part of the UK. You dont need our oil or our wind or sea or rain for us to be a part of the Union, do you?
    No. But then I don't base my stance on English independence solely on economics. I want England to be independent because I am English, not British. The Union was/is an oppresive organ that has enslaved all the peoples of these islands to the whim of the Westminster political elite. As I have said before Nationalism is the only way our race and our nations are going to survive. And this nationalism has to be based on substance. There is no "British" people, unless you count the Welsh, Cornish, and Cumbrians, the remnants of the Brython peoples. The UK will face the same future as the USSR, Yugoslavia, and all other artificial states. I don't doubt it's past success. But that was built on imperial grandeur, nothing more. And even then only the elite gained anything. The seperate identities have never been destroyed, although Englishness came close. They are now reawakening. Why cling to a dead carcass?
    Wita sceal ge■yldig, ne sceal no to hatheort ne to hrŠdwyrde, ne to wac wiga ne to wanhydig, ne to forht ne to fŠgen, ne to feohgifre ne nŠfre gielpes to georn, Šr he geare cunne. Beorn sceal gebidan, ■onne he beot sprice­, o■■Št collenfer­ cunne gearwe hwider hre■ra gehygd hweorfan wille.

    http://www.odinic-rite.org/index2.html
    http://www.steadfasttrust.org.uk/

  6. #6
    Senior Member Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, December 25th, 2006 @ 12:52 PM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Country
    Scotland Scotland
    Location
    Northern Briton
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Politics
    Preservation and revival
    Religion
    Animist
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Scotland as a viable nation-state

    Quote Originally Posted by Engledrihten
    The problem being here that it is legally not Scottish or English oil. It is British oil. There is no marine boundary between Scotland and England, which is why I said that the Scottish should expect that England will want it's cut of the oil revenue.
    Yes there is. If Scotland was to become independant borders would have to be drawn up including sea boundaries.
    The North Sea north of the 55th parallel falls under Scottish jurisdiction. This is recognised by both the Scottish and Westminster parliaments under Section 126(2) of the Scotland Act.
    "The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order, to be made under Section
    126(2) of the Scotland Act, sets out a maritime boundary between the waters
    adjacent to Scotland and those adjacent to the rest of the UK"
    “The boundary set out in the draft order will not change the common law border,
    but it will provide a basis for future legislation, whether at Westminster or by the
    Scottish Parliament. The prospect of a clear and simplified boundary should avoid
    the uncertainty inherent in the present arrangement.”
    “The boundary follows the normal convention for determining similar international
    boundaries, that is, a median line between the nearest points of land on either
    side, using the baselines that have been established around the coast of the UK in
    accordance with international law.”
    The water boundaries between Scotland and England will most likely be based upon this Order.
    http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/pbl/jgibs...9/19991126.htm
    Again the problem is that Scotland is not an independent state and its "Parliament" has no say on who runs the oil franchise.
    This thread is about the viability of Scotland as a Nation State not what it is now.
    I don't steal anything.
    I was just taking the piss. Chill
    No. But then I don't base my stance on English independence solely on economics. I want England to be independent because I am English, not British. The Union was/is an oppresive organ that has enslaved all the peoples of these islands to the whim of the Westminster political elite. As I have said before Nationalism is the only way our race and our nations are going to survive. And this nationalism has to be based on substance. There is no "British" people, unless you count the Welsh, Cornish, and Cumbrians, the remnants of the Brython peoples. The UK will face the same future as the USSR, Yugoslavia, and all other artificial states. I don't doubt it's past success. But that was built on imperial grandeur, nothing more. And even then only the elite gained anything. The seperate identities have never been destroyed, although Englishness came close. They are now reawakening. Why cling to a dead carcass?
    Where's the logic of dividing this small island into a number of countries? When England itself is a very diverse place with distinctive regional cultures and dialects it makes as much sense to split up England as it does to split up Britain.
    The truth of the matter is that both Scotland and England are "artificial", being a Scot can mean different things to Scots depending on what part of the country you are from, the same with being English. Likewise Southern Upland Scots and Northern English have more in common with each other in terms of culture and language (dialect) than they do with people from other parts of their respective "nations". im sure the same applies to other regions of England, f.e. the Welsh Marches - Wales.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    A! Fredome is a noble thing
    Fredome mays man to haiff liking.
    Fredome all solace to man giffis,
    He levys at es that frely levys.
    A noble hart may haiff nane es
    Na ellys nocht that may him ples
    Gyff fredome failyhe, for fre liking
    Is yharnyt our all other thing.
    Na he that ay has levyt fre
    May nocht knaw weill the propyrte
    The angyr na the wrechyt dome
    That is couplyt to foule thyrldome,
    Bot gyff he had assayit it.
    Than all perquer he suld it wyt,
    And suld think fredome mar to prys
    Than all the gold in warld that is.
    Thus contrar thingis evermar
    Discoveryngis off the tother ar,


    Scots is our mither tung; an gin we dinna hain it,
    thare naebody gaun tae hain it for us.


    Scots is our mother tongue; and if we do not preserve it,
    nobody will preserve it for us.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Š■eling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 19th, 2008 @ 08:46 PM
    Age
    38
    Posts
    330
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Re: Scotland as a viable nation-state

    Yes there is. If Scotland was to become independant borders would have to be drawn up including sea boundaries.
    The North Sea north of the 55th parallel falls under Scottish jurisdiction. This is recognised by both the Scottish and Westminster parliaments under Section 126(2) of the Scotland Act.
    "The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order, to be made under Section
    126(2) of the Scotland Act, sets out a maritime boundary between the waters
    adjacent to Scotland and those adjacent to the rest of the UK"
    “The boundary set out in the draft order will not change the common law border,
    but it will provide a basis for future legislation, whether at Westminster or by the
    Scottish Parliament. The prospect of a clear and simplified boundary should avoid
    the uncertainty inherent in the present arrangement.”
    “The boundary follows the normal convention for determining similar international
    boundaries, that is, a median line between the nearest points of land on either
    side, using the baselines that have been established around the coast of the UK in
    accordance with international law.”
    The water boundaries between Scotland and England will most likely be
    Thanks for that information. But my original point still stands. England and Scotland are not seperate nations at present, and to expect there to be no problems if/when independence comes about is wishful thinking, especially when something as valuable as oil is up for grabs.

    Where's the logic of dividing this small island into a number of countries? When England itself is a very diverse place with distinctive regional cultures and dialects it makes as much sense to split up England as it does to split up Britain.
    The truth of the matter is that both Scotland and England are "artificial", being a Scot can mean different things to Scots depending on what part of the country you are from, the same with being English. Likewise Southern Upland Scots and Northern English have more in common with each other in terms of culture and language (dialect) than they do with people from other parts of their respective "nations". im sure the same applies to other regions of England, f.e. the Welsh Marches - Wales.
    Where is the logic in staying in the UK? Or joining/leaving the EU? Where is the logic in Ireland not being in the UK, or N. ireland being sperate from southern? Logic is rarely a factor in national loyalties. And to say England and Scotland are "artificial" is not wrong but it misses out a lot of factors. Any nationality grows from a collective conscience of similiarity. So all nationalities are "creations" it is a case of drawing the line. There has been an English identity as far back as Bede in AD737 and this at a time when England was divided into seperate kingdoms. You can argue that English identity goes back as far as our ancestral homeland in Angeln. Scotland does have a very marked division, to be sure. The highlands are a combination of Scots, Picts and Norse. Where as the lowlands have English and Briton added to the first two. But Scottish identity is strong. Because, like England, these peoples have grown from their original tribal identities to create new identities. This has never been the case with the UK. Which from the beginning has only ever been an imperialist project.

    Most people have regional loyalties. I am a Mercian. But ask someone in England their nationality and the answer will be English. And besides that there is no call for regional seperatism, beyond a small minority. Where as Scottish, and Welsh nationalism has never died, and English nationalism is on the increase. Any nationality is based on ties of loyalty and ethnicity. In the British Isles we have English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish. There are other ties as well. Some claim Cornish. Some in Ireland claim to be Ulster-Scots. Nationality can, and hs, changed. But the UK is not such a case. You have no doubt seen surveys of what it means to be "British"? The answers are inevitabely such arbitrary things as the stif upper lip, the bull-dog spirit, and the monarchy. All cliches with little substance. Go beyond that and few, if any, have a clue to what it means. Beacuse it does not mean anything, it is non existant. Ask a Scot what it means to be Scot, or a Welshman what it means to be Welsh, and you wont be short for an answer. Englishness struggles here because it has been superceded by imperialist "British" or drowned out by Marxist ideology. But the English are begining slowly to reclaim there identity.
    Last edited by Š■eling; Saturday, September 24th, 2005 at 02:14 PM.
    Wita sceal ge■yldig, ne sceal no to hatheort ne to hrŠdwyrde, ne to wac wiga ne to wanhydig, ne to forht ne to fŠgen, ne to feohgifre ne nŠfre gielpes to georn, Šr he geare cunne. Beorn sceal gebidan, ■onne he beot sprice­, o■■Št collenfer­ cunne gearwe hwider hre■ra gehygd hweorfan wille.

    http://www.odinic-rite.org/index2.html
    http://www.steadfasttrust.org.uk/

  8. #8
    Senior Member Ljˇt-fulfr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 14th, 2012 @ 04:21 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    3/4 Scottish 1/25 English
    Subrace
    Nordid / Tronder
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    North Carolina North Carolina
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single parent
    Occupation
    Correctional Officer
    Politics
    Libertarian /National Socialist
    Religion
    ┴satr˙
    Posts
    68
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: Scotland as a viable nation-state

    Engledrihten,

    I couldn't agree with you more! Your analysis of the current situation in England and Scotland is very correct. The current Marixist-Socialist regime in the SNP is no nationalist platform in the true sense. I wouldn't doubt there is some conspiracy to high-jack the nationalist movement in Scotland. I like the BNP's stance at present but seriously doubt if they'll ever gain widespread support. As you said, Scotland must first develop its economy before nationalism can gain public support. I have been very impressed with the Irish economy and would like to see the same results in Scotland. At present, I do not support the current SNP regime and I believe their Marxist-Socialist is a waste of the vote.

    Jjotfulfr

Similar Threads

  1. Nation vs. State, Nationalism vs. Statism
    By Schmetterling in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, February 23rd, 2008, 06:09 PM
  2. The Dying Nation-State
    By Ahnenerbe in forum Strategic Intelligence
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Thursday, September 20th, 2007, 05:56 PM
  3. Defining Ethnicity, Nation and State
    By Siegfried in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Saturday, December 9th, 2006, 08:30 PM
  4. European Integration and Sub-State Nationalism: Flanders, Scotland and the EU
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Germanic Europe & Outlying Islands
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, November 13th, 2006, 11:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •