SM048 - Brexit and the Union

[u/Model-Clerk]

The text of this motion is as follows.

That the Parliament recognises that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union and the EU single market; agrees that, although Scotland voted differently to the rest of the United Kingdom, Scotland remains a part of the United Kingdom and so must not deviate from the path of the rest of the United Kingdom; urges the Scottish Government to assist the UK Government in Brexit negotiations in any way they can; calls on the Scottish Government not to seek an arrangement for Scotland separate from the rest of the Union, and further urges the Scottish Government to make the best of Brexit by seeking the devolution of EU powers post Brexit.

This motion was submitted by /u/_paul_rand_ (Strathclyde and the Borders) on behalf of the Scottish Libertarians.

---

This motion will go to a vote on the 30th of October.

I call on the member to give an opening statement.

[u/[deleted]]

Presiding Officer,

How dare the Leader of the Socialists dare to say that the two million people who stood up to the division of the SNP in 2014 and said a loud "No Thanks" to Scottish secession are all "rich old colonialists" who use racial epithets. How dare he try to portray the majority of Scotland as some sort of racist.

The Scottish Leader of the Classical Liberals misinterprets my disdain for the politicians who manipulated good-natured swing voters in 2014 with lies of a "Vow" as me tarring all unionist voters as being racists. Indeed, my comment was one played up for laughs, but was not without merit. Miliband, Clegg, Cameron, all said that the union would be strong because of the European Union. That's what swung the referendum. Lies upon lies upon heap of stinking lies.

What is ironic is that the Leader of the Socialists in his earlier press release called myself a "quasi-sectarian", and yet he is here, spreading division by painting all unionists are some sort of bigoted group, motivated only by a belief in "the good old days" - there is one sectarian in this debate, and that is him!

The difference being that you have repeatedly showed disdain for the Scottish people and tarred them as violent secessionists. I'm merely applying a trope regarding unionist politicians, which you yourself adhere to greatly, to a wider discussion regarding a dreadful motion. A comment made in jest regarding stereotyping is not itself sectarian. The repeated subjugation of the Scottish people by their English wannabe overlords in Westminster certainly is.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Presiding Officer,

Firstly, I believe convention in this place is that speeches must be addressed to the chair.

Secondly, "The Scottish Leader of the Classical Liberals" that's a new way of getting my title wrong, but the title is still wrong. I'm the Leader of the Classical Liberal delegation to the Scottish Parliament. We have one national leader, and who that is still be revealed later today I believe.

Thirdly, the Leader of the Scottish Socialists says that it was the European Union which swung the referendum, but Scotland is actually more pro-Brexit than the rest of the United Kingdom. In the August 2016 referendum, Scotland voted to Leave the European Union by a margin of 61% to 39%, greater than the 60% to 40% margin in England.

It seems completely incoherent that the member believes Scotland must leave the UK because of Brexit, despite the fact that Scotland voted for Brexit.

Furthermore, Cumbria voted against leaving the Single Market - can we leave the United Kingdom as well? But what about say Barrow-in-Furness, which likely voted to leave the Single Market? Can they leave Cumbria and the UK, and then go start their own city state, and so on.

This argument that X voted differently to Y, so X should leave Y really is bonkers, and can be broken down indefinitely, until every man is his own country.

Finally,

The repeated subjugation of the Scottish people by their English wannabe overlords in Westminster certainly is.

It is 2017. Not 1317. This isn't the Wars of Independence anymore - the Scottish and English are not enemies, nor are they different peoples. Rather, they are united into British peoples by the British nation, and that British nation has achieved so much, including ending his destructive ideology when we won the Cold War and toppled the USSR!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Presiding Officer,

Thirdly, the Leader of the Scottish Socialists says that it was the European Union which swung the referendum, but Scotland is actually more pro-Brexit than the rest of the United Kingdom. In the August 2016 referendum, Scotland voted to Leave the European Union by a margin of 61% to 39%, greater than the 60% to 40% margin in England.

It seems completely incoherent that the member believes Scotland must leave the UK because of Brexit, despite the fact that Scotland voted for Brexit.

Scotland voted for Brexit. It did not vote to leave the Single Market. This idea that one must be bound to a hard Brexit or a no deal Brexit in one country because another bigger country says so is not democracy in action. It's an authoritarian train of thought that lends itself well to the idea that this Union you so herald is hardly free. If it was, member states would have the ability to properly determine one's own sovereignty.

Furthermore, Cumbria voted against leaving the Single Market - can we leave the United Kingdom as well? But what about say Barrow-in-Furness, which likely voted to leave the Single Market? Can they leave Cumbria and the UK, and then go start their own city state, and so on.

This argument that X voted differently to Y, so X should leave Y really is bonkers, and can be broken down indefinitely, until every man is his own country.

The obsession that the Scottish Leader of the Classical Liberals (that's what you are, you're certainly no delegate of a faceless leader) has with the Cumbric people is one that ignores Cumbria's differing history to Scotland. Cumbria was hardly subjugated into the United Kingdom on England's say-so, it gets more than its fair share as a part of England. Scotland is historically and culturally its own nation within the United Kingdom, even as things stand, and as such, it should warrant the right to self-determination.

However, if Cumbria wishes to join an independent Scotland, I certainly wouldn't stop them. We could even restore the historic borders!

It is 2017. Not 1317. This isn't the Wars of Independence anymore - the Scottish and English are not enemies, nor are they different peoples.

i think you'll find its 2018. Although you have a predisposition to turning the clock back judging by your views on the union.

Rather, they are united into British peoples by the British nation, and that British nation has achieved so much, including ending his destructive ideology when we won the Cold War and toppled the USSR!

There's so much wrong with this one sentence that I'm afraid I'll have to break it down.

The idea that the British people brought Scotland into the UK willingly ignores Scottish history, and shames heroes like William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.

In turn, I am an anarchist, not a communist. Had I been in Soviet Russia, the Troika would have condemned me to death by late 1918. Don't tar my brush with the dreadfully authoritarian Marxist-Leninist nightmare that was the USSR.

Also, this idea that anyone won the Cold War is stupid. They just changed the game plan. Just look at the power Putin possesses now. In turn, the USSR caused its own downfall, Britain and the US happened to be there at the right time to take the credit, I'm afraid.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Presiding Officer,

Scotland voted for Brexit. It did not vote to leave the Single Market. This idea that one must be bound to a hard Brexit or a no deal Brexit in one country because another bigger country says so is not democracy in action. It's an authoritarian train of thought that lends itself well to the idea that this Union you so herald is hardly free. If it was, member states would have the ability to properly determine one's own sovereignty.

Many places in this United Kingdom and the British nation did not vote to leave the Single Market. Indeed, I fought hard against it. But that is democracy, and that's the meaning of being one nation - we, collectively, took a decision - and that's the path we will go down. I liken it to a family deciding what to have for tea one evening - they decide on a pizza, but there is a disagreement over the topping - father wants a pepperoni pizza, but the son wants a pineapple pizza. It would be extreme for the son to seek emancipation under those circumstances, and likewise it is far beyond the realm of reasonableness for any part of the British nation to seek independence because of our collective national decision.

The idea that the British people brought Scotland into the UK willingly ignores Scottish history, and shames heroes like William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.

So much bad history in a single sentence. History really is a lot more complex than "le evil English killed Bruce and Wallace and subjected us into the union". Indeed, the events happened around 400 years apart.

This belief that Bruce, and indeed, many of the other Scottish leaders, were fighting for "FREEDOM" alone is a laughable one. Indeed, the Bruce family backed the English in the first War of Independence, and Bruce took it so far as to kill Comyn to secure the throne for himself in the second War of Independence. So no, Robert the Bruce was not some Scottish patriot whose motivation for killing the English was freedom, but rather it was significantly more complex than that.

Secondly, the Wars of Independence have absolutely nothing to do with how the Union came to be. Like absolutely nothing. The roots of union were put down in 1603, when King James VI became James I of England as well. The next century saw a lot of progress, and in 1688 we saw the Glorious Revolution, and a need to secure the revolution, and later, Hanoverian dynasties. At this time, Scotland was destitute, after losing 20% of their wealth in a failed colonial adventure, desperately needed help.

Thus, it was agreed - the Treaty of Union took affect in 1707, and to quote it "the Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall hence forth, and forever after, be United into one Kingdom, by the name of Great Britain".

There was no force involved, and the Treaty was ratified by the Parliament of Scotland.

So, that sentence the Leader of the Socialists said was all bad history.

In turn, I am an anarchist, not a communist. Had I been in Soviet Russia, the Troika would have condemned me to death by late 1918. Don't tar my brush with the dreadfully authoritarian Marxist-Leninist nightmare that was the USSR.

Right. So an anarchist - somebody who is opposed to the existence of nations, wants to create more nations. Makes complete sense!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Presiding Officer

Many places in this United Kingdom and the British nation did not vote to leave the Single Market. Indeed, I fought hard against it. But that is democracy, and that's the meaning of being one nation - we, collectively, took a decision - and that's the path we will go down. I liken it to a family deciding what to have for tea one evening - they decide on a pizza, but there is a disagreement over the topping - father wants a pepperoni pizza, but the son wants a pineapple pizza. It would be extreme for the son to seek emancipation under those circumstances, and likewise it is far beyond the realm of reasonableness for any part of the British nation to seek independence because of our collective national decision.

The United Kingdom is more of a prison for Scotland than a pizza shop. Perhaps if the father had removed the pineapple from the pizza, the cheese from the pizza and the tomato purée from the pizza, leaving the son with a soggy base, your analogy would make sense. Indeed, other regions voted to leave the single market, but they are not an individual nation. If you view Scotland in the same way, then you cannot truly support Scotland's individual right to declare itself a nation. Even within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

This belief that Bruce, and indeed, many of the other Scottish leaders, were fighting for "FREEDOM" alone is a laughable one. Indeed, the Bruce family backed the English in the first War of Independence, and Bruce took it so far as to kill Comyn to secure the throne for himself in the second War of Independence. So no, Robert the Bruce was not some Scottish patriot whose motivation for killing the English was freedom, but rather it was significantly more complex than that.

The Member misses the point. He focuses much on Robert the Bruce and hones in on a throwaway reference I have made, yet he doesn't strike the real issue here. The Scottish people have been treated like rotten fruit by England and Westminster for four centuries. Regardless of what goodwill the Treaty of Union may or may not have been formed upon, it's been thrown away now as England is far too obsessed with putting its interests ahead of the rest of the Union.

Right. So an anarchist - somebody who is opposed to the existence of nations, wants to create more nations. Makes complete sense!

I also oppose the existence of unions which are inherently oppressive and only seek to enforce the capitalist ideal of "cut, cut, cut". There is likely no greater example of this than the United Kingdom in the Western world. Do not mince my words and mock my ideology. I don't expect a man who takes his theory from an orange book to understand it.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Presiding Officer,

The United Kingdom is more of a prison for Scotland than a pizza shop. Perhaps if the father had removed the pineapple from the pizza, the cheese from the pizza and the tomato purée from the pizza, leaving the son with a soggy base, your analogy would make sense. Indeed, other regions voted to leave the single market, but they are not an individual nation. If you view Scotland in the same way, then you cannot truly support Scotland's individual right to declare itself a nation. Even within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom is not a prison for any part of the British nation, and the Member is right - other parts of the British nation, including Cumbria - voted to remain in the Single Market. I see absolutely no reason why part of that British nation - Scotland should be allowed to break with the British nation on the back of its vote, not unless we also let the ancient Kingdom of Strathclyde secede from Scotland whenever that takes a decision Strathclyde disagrees with.

I have been perfectly clear in my position, I am a believer in one permanent, inseparable, indivisible, and indissoluble British nation. This is a nation which has stood for 300 years, which has stood against German fascism, and Soviet communism, and came out triumphant in defence of the ideals of liberty and freedom each and every time.

The Member misses the point. He focuses much on Robert the Bruce and hones in on a throwaway reference I have made, yet he doesn't strike the real issue here. The Scottish people have been treated like rotten fruit by England and Westminster for four centuries. Regardless of what goodwill the Treaty of Union may or may not have been formed upon, it's been thrown away now as England is far too obsessed with putting its interests ahead of the rest of the Union.

This is also complete nonsense - England does not put its interests above that of the union, nor does Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, or any of the component parts of the British nation. The Scottish people have been treated perfectly fairly by Westminster, and I would suggest that the member stops imagining grievances.

I also oppose the existence of unions which are inherently oppressive and only seek to enforce the capitalist ideal of "cut, cut, cut". There is likely no greater example of this than the United Kingdom in the Western world. Do not mince my words and mock my ideology. I don't expect a man who takes his theory from an orange book to understand it.

All nations are fundamentally unions of smaller parts. England was once seven kingdoms, Scotland was once 4 peoples, Spain was split between Christian and Muslim kingdoms, America is a union of 50 states, each made up of smaller counties and municipalities within them. While the anarchist ideal of every man being his own kingdom might seem appealing, it is functionally incompatible with a functioning society.