Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - Printable Version
+- Immortal Technique: Unofficial Forum (http://www.immortaltechnique.co.uk)
+-- Forum: General Discussion (/Forum-General-Discussion)
+--- Forum: Politics/World Issues (/Forum-Politics-World-Issues)
+--- Thread: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism (/Thread-Scottish-Devolution-British-Federalism)
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - shakur420 - 01-07-2012 03:39 PM
Yeah, but aren't those oaths just symbolic or whatever? Like the Queen doesn't have any power to declare war, cut social sending or fuck with interest rates, right? That loyalty doesn't really have any real effect, does it?
And what you mean they have their own royal family? Scotland has it's own monarchy? And would power be brought down to them if there was some devolution?
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - 1871 - 01-07-2012 04:08 PM
No they are not just symbolic. If you dont make the oath to obey and swear alleigance you are not allowed to sit in the House of Commons. End of. So if youre on a Republican (not US Republican, but you know what I mean) you are not allowed to sit in the House or represent your constituents in the House.
Its not a be all and end all issue but its one reason why Sinn Fein dont sit in the House of Commons - or havent in the past. It isnt the entire issue for them -(SF) but as with a 'devolved' Parlaiment as opposed to an independent onwe - it is what that Parliament represents (for the nationalists) and who infact controls it.
Sinn Fein are just a bit further down the line since the Republic had its revolution in 1916.
The Prime minister reports to the Monarch a monthly basis and the monarch is the head of the armed forces. It isnt a purely symbolic role - more a representation of an elite, controlling classes power over a purportedly 'democratic' process.
For Independence and Democracy
Scottish Socialist Party Election manifesto 2011
In a devolved Scotland the SSP is committed to implementing the following:
■ For a Yes vote in any independence referendum.
■ The introduction of participatory democracy at community level by establishing local assemblies with the power to make and veto decisions that affect their community.
■ An increase in the maximum number of councillors per ward from 4 to 6, to allow greater proportionality and more representative local government.
We will also campaign for the following measures, which are not within the Scottish Parliament’s powers:
■ A directly elected Constitutional Assembly, representative of Scotland’s regional, gender and ethnic diversity to draw up options for a new constitution for Scotland, which would be put to a further referendum vote.
■ A nuclear-free Scotland that is outside of NATO.
■ Military spending to be reduced to no more than the per capita level of the Republic of Ireland, which would mean slashing the defence budget by £2.5 billion.
■ A new relationship with the European Union which would safeguard Scotland’s independence.
■ All individuals living in Scotland to be entitled to full Scottish citizenship, irrespective of national origin.
■ A socialist Scotland based on the principles of equality, democracy, liberty, generosity and solidarity.
■ The abolition of the monarchy and all its structural and ideological supports, including the offensive ceremony whereby elected MSPs are forced to swear an oath of allegiance to an unelected monarch.
■ No unelected second chamber.
■ All elections to be conducted under a genuinely proportional system, and the scrapping of the anti-democratic ﬁrst-past-the-post system.
■ The reduction of the voting and candidacy age to 16.
■ The extension of the right to vote to people who are homeless and to those who are in prison.
■ Participatory democracy in the workplace.
■ Support for the open source software movement and for all public bodies to use open source software where available and appropriate.
■ Greater use of referenda to allow ordinary people a say in controversial decisions.
The thing is, in my view, if you are an independent nation, making your own laws for your own people then where does the 'devolved' bit come in/? Is Canada devolved from the UK? No its an independent nation (except the monarch owns a lot of the land lol).
'Devolved' implies an overseing power in the process which is outside of direct and local- independent - democrat control. I mean who is it that is doing the 'devolving' ?
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - shakur420 - 01-07-2012 04:25 PM
^Yeah, for sure, I don't think it can be dismissed as "symbolic" either. Just the class reality makes that claim impossible, but the allegiance to the monarchy is actually an issue, eh? So Sinn Fein actually holds seats? They just aren't allowed in the house cause they would pledge the loyalty to the monarchy? That shit's grimy.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - 1871 - 01-07-2012 04:51 PM
The issue for Sinn Fein is not so much the oath of allegiance (more so in the past) but the idea that a Parliament in Westminster London historically or present day has any legitimacy in their own country. Ireland is not England. Scotland is not England. But the Unionists will say that they are British. Its about the recognition of that power and those borders - its like a chinese box. Britain in Ireland and Ireland in Britain - and historically its roots go way back as the reult of influences outside of Britain which became British and established, and over time consolidated, a class system - which is why you are entirely correct in your intuition and comments regarding Rome - that is if the question 'how did this all arise' is asked - not just Rome of course, but you can see how the class system was created and continually maintained even to this day; re; Techs comments about the crushing by the power structure of Rome ie; established catholic church of liberation theology for instance. Or Hamishes comment re a German Queen - why for instance the Royal family had tpo publicly renounce their lineage in WW1 - though of course the connections to its lineage are implicitly recognised in the very idea of a 'bloodline'. The actual religious and class differences came about as a result of colonial invasions and the way thatr colonial invading powers created a class system that perpetuate itself - they are long since dead - but their power structures continued - this is perpetuated in 'bloodlines' and the gathering of class interests, money, wealth and power around that structure - so the rich maintain their power. Not everyone who is rich is a monarchist of course - but they recognise eachothers power and work to maintain a class hedgemony = so there is a unity among them - this perpetuates a divide between rich and poor - even with reformations.
They could change the oath of allegiance but then they (SF) would still have to recognise the legitimacy of Her Majestys troop presence in Northern Ireland (still there) in making that oath and recognising the London Parliament. So they refuse. So its not only about the issue of the oath but also if they will recognise another nations legitimacy over their own affairs.
The peace process in N.Ireland for instance an only be said to be legitimate when there is a referendum in the island of Ireland concerning a united Ireland. Unionists will say that the Republic is another country and should have no say over its own decisions (ie; who is 'our own).You see how it becomes a mirror image ? But the power structures (and make people see double lol - unless you have steady sight) still reman and that is the real issue - the domination of class, wealth and power. Not entirely a seperate issue since the monarchy are always keen to be seen controlling areas of celtic independence movements when they arise - its why there is a Duke of Cornwall (Prince Charles) owning areas and overseeing Cornwall while people from the home counties buy up second home properties there and force locals out in what is the poorest area in Europe according to the EUs own statistics - meanwhile the Cornish see themselves as an independent Celtic nation - and you can check out the actual history of that to see if there is validity in it.
Not only this, but its essentially undemocratic for the English also, since Scots get to vote on English matters but English cannot vote on Scots matters. Scots students get tuition fees, English students dont, etc, etc - it isnt an equitable system which treats all people in Britain fairly - its more like a badly designed building thats on the way to collapsing.
RE: Scottish Devolution / British Federalism - shakur420 - 01-08-2012 04:56 AM
Ok, maybe I'm starting to get it. It's like a symbolic rejection of the monarchy, just kind of like how the monarchy is presented as "symbolic" itself? Something like that?
p.s., didn't really understand what you meant about the "liberation theology", but this is kind of what I know about it, it was the adoption of the "preferential option for the poor" by the local Churches in Latin America, something they were viciously attacked for by the Vatican. Not sure if you meant that it was like Rome, in keeping with class divisions, or that it was the opposite, trynna break those class divisions. As far as I understand it, it was the latter.