« ARTS: Ormsby and Longley celebrate RBAI’s bi-centenary | REVIEW: Peter Doherty in Mandela Hall »
FEATURE: Would an independent Scotland spell the end of the Union?
On Monday, people around the world celebrated Burns Night. The 25th of January was also to be the date the SNP released the bill that they hoped would be a first step towards an independent Scotland. What would this mean for Northern Ireland?
BY CATHAL MC GUIGAN
On Monday night Queen’s celebrated its sixth annual Burns Night. The tradition marks the birthday of Robert (Rabbie) Burns, Scotland’s national poet and author of the world famous ‘Auld Lang Syne’. This year’s guest speaker, Professor Leith Davis, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver spoke about the worldwide appeal of Robert Burns and how he is appropriated by various cultures for various reasons.
Burns Night has been growing in popularity for many years. Last year, Robert Burns was voted ‘Greatest Scot of all time’ by STV. The poet managed to beat strong contenders such as David Hume and William Wallace.
The Scottish National Party (SNP) had hoped to attract some of this popularity to its cause, the fight for Scottish independence. Burns Night 2010 was to be the day that the SNP published their controversial Referendum Bill. Yet, it is now suspected that the bill will not be published until late February.
Some feel it will not be welcomed. The Scottish Labour Party is critical of the move as it feels that Scotland needs to concentrate on economic recovery at the moment.
The SNP wants the referendum to be held on St. Andrew’s Day (30 November) which is another important day in the Scottish cultural calender. Though unlikely to be influential, this could prove to be an important step towards a Scotland which is independent of the UK.
What might the push for Scottish independence mean for Northern Ireland?
In Northern Ireland, the celebration of the poety of Robert Burns is essential to the Ulster-Scots culture and emphasises the link between Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Surely the strongest cultural, ethnic and religious ties that Unionists have are with Scotland, a good example being the dialect of Ulster-Scots.
An independent Scotland would raise many questions for Northern Ireland.
Would the Union be as meaningful for Unionists without Scotland? And what if Wales followed and became an independent state? Could Northern Ireland be part of a smaller union with only England, or perhaps only Scotland? Could this lead to an United Ireland? Or could it possibly survive completely on its own?
At the time of the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections, Mark Devenport considered some of these questions;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6603033.stm
Tags: Cathal McGuigan, Gown, newspaper, qub, Queen's, queen's university, student, The Gown
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 1:34 am and is filed under Features, News, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Related Posts
“FEATURE: Would an independent Scotland spell the end of the Union?”
7 Comments + Add a Comment
Comment Here:
Comments will not be published if:
- The language used is considered offensive, obscene, threatening or vulgar.
- You reveal any private information about yourself or anyone else, such as contact details.
- You make untrue, unsubstantiated or libellous claims about other people or companies.
- It is spam.
- Privacy: Please note that your email address is required to confirm you are a real person, and to reduce comment spam. Your email address is not used or recorded in any way by The Gown. Thanks for your comment. It will be posted once it has been approved by our moderators.
Loading ...
Let’s hope so!!!!
I second that.
As an Englishman the only thing I want more than Scottish independence is English independence.
Yet another self absorbed article from a so-called Celtic nation, proud of it’s Scottish roots. In all these debates about devolution or independence or separation, the English never enter the equation. The English are never consulted or asked for their consent, even when it came to the balkanisation of their country by a Scots dominated parliament. But then, why bother to consult the cash cow that funds the entire so-called Union when its largesse is taken as a matter of right by their neighbours?
Be careful what you wish for. The English are becoming increasingly tired of being the unequal partner in an alleged Union of Equals and many of us would wish to see an end to it and to wave you fare thee well. We can see no benefit to England in the continuance of a union that has placed us with such democratic, social and financial disadvantage.
If the English are funding the ‘entire union’ why do they take Scotlands oil?
England aren’t asked because they don’t have a say. After all they were the ones who decided to go around the world taking over countries. Bear in mind that at the very beginning no-one wanted a union with England so if they are at a disadvantage, which is almost laughably doubtful, it is their own fault!
Saxon why do you think the english should be consulted about scotland leaving the union. England invaded, surely the choice of whether or not scotland is controlled by a foreign nation should democratically be decided by the invaded state and not the invader. It is not long now until the so called union is retired and england will have to except this, consulted or not. Free Ireland.
Thought you were talking about an independent Scotland spelling the end for the actual Union…as in the students’ union.
well you’re an idiot then Barry.
Also on a point of information to Mickey Maguire it was not the English Invasion of Scotland that led to the Union it was the sucession of James Stewart, already James VI of Scotland to the English throne following the death of Elizabeth I. Technically speaking Scotland took over England. There’s nothing worse than inaccurate republicanism.