Independence: Why Scotland Is Facing the Same Political and Media Backlash as So

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

 

Posted: 10/03/2014 12:52

Read more

Scotland's Referendum, Independence, scotland, Somaliland, Somaliland Independence, UK Politics News

 

Let's get this out of the way. Scotland is not an official country and neither is Somaliland. Neither has a seat at the EU or a seat at the AU, respectively, nor do either have a seat at the UN. Their governments pass local laws and govern everything within their borders, but others speak on their behalf (and receive money in their name) on the world stage. Scotland may be referred to as a country, but aside from preferential terminology, it is not recognised as a country. This is where the Scottish struggle for independence comes in.

 

Scotland's call for independence in the last few years is an ideological one, born out of political and economic gains that independence will bring. Somaliland's call for independence since 1991 was born out of necessity, as a last option to the 100,000s of lives lost during the attack of the military regime of the government at the time on Somaliland. They have since had their referendum, agreed to be independent and have been lobbying for international recognition ever since.

 

The first concrete step towards Scotland's Independence was the Edinburgh Agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on having a Referendum in Scotland. Somaliland does not have such an agreement with the Federal Government of Somalia, as there was no-one to negotiate with for the last two decades. The permanent Government of Somalia that has recently been created and is funded, supported, and protected by the international community is not willing to support Somaliland's independence claims and sees them only as a region, and not a country.

 

There have been white papers, Question Time debates on Scottish young voters and independence as well as the independence argument between Scottish MPs, Scottish Parliamentary debates, to make the case for and against Scotland's independence. Somaliland has had very little of this in comparison, but it is long overdue.

 

But the strongest influence on public opinion comes from two age-old instruments, political institutions and the media. In my previous article on ethnic conflict, I highlighted how we use the same tactics on ourselves that the old colonial powers used to use on us. One of those colonial powers was Great Britain and they had perfected their techniques, because they used it on Scotland, Wales, and Ireland over the last few centuries. They were willing to 'give' their colonies independence, but are not as willing to give it to the neighbours they've colonised. And the politicians are using the media to spin their stories.

 

If a country wants to join the EU, they have to submit a membership application, and the European Commission assesses the applicant's ability to meet the Copenhagen criteria, split into the 35 chapters of the 'acquis'. But when you have the President of the European Commission telling the media that Scotland joining the EU is near impossible before they have even submitted an application, you can very quickly see how opposition is building up even outside of the UK. Members of the EU are worried that Scotland's independence will trigger secession calls within other EU member states, which is why Spain has been against allowing Kosovo to join the EU, as it would face further pressure from within their own borders. As the only major country in Western Europe refusing to recognise Kosovo, Spain has made clear that recognising their independence would cause implications regarding its own issues with independence movements in the Basque Country, Galicia and Catalonia.

 

Somaliland is facing a similar issue with the African Union and the UN. Kofi Annan reported to the General Assembly in 2000 that "'Somaliland', in particular, remain[ed] firmly outside the peace process." The UN (driven by US policy) is concerned that recognising the independence of Somaliland will further destabilise South-Central Somalia, and does not want to destabilise the relations they have with their allies in the regions, such as Ethiopia. The African Union is also apprehensive, considering the possibility that allowing the secession of Somaliland will trigger more calls of secession with the other African countries. They are quite keen to keep the borders that were drawn up by their colonisers and the previous colonial powers support them in that decision. It's a mind-set that desperately needs changing. Despite the AU fact-finding report in 2005, the African Union still has not had a complete debate on possibility of recognising Somaliland. And the rest of the world will not recognise Somaliland if the AU is unwilling to.

 

But the biggest obstacle to the independence of Scotland and Somaliland are the administrations they are trying to separate from. England believes in 'Great Britain' which includes Scotland; and Somalia believes in 'Greater Somalia' which includes Somaliland. The ideology behind this is dressed up as an economically, politically and socially driven policy where the Nation is stronger together. But the truth is, nobody wants to give up control of a region within their current borders, as this may strengthen the new independent region, but would weaken the country they have separated from. It's about survival.

 

Perhaps both countries should be independent, perhaps they shouldn't. The arguments on both sides are very convincing for Scotland and Somaliland. But what should definitely happen is that an open debate should be held that considers this from all perspectives and that everyone remains true to the strongest pillar of democracy, the pillar that protects the right of self-determination of any people. You want Scotland or Somaliland to vote for or against independence? Then organise the debate to happen openly and fairly, and convince the citizens why your case is in their best interest, and allow the citizens to choose for themselves.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/awoowe-hamza/scottish-independence-backlash_b_4929480.html

[Hawdian]

The UK union I think willl be saved on the bases that the British Goverment have been willing to face the question of scottish independence head on compared to many other countries the UK goverment have followed the rules and have even given Scotland economic advantages compared to the rest of United Kingdom . In the Somaliland - Somaalia case I genuely believe that race is gone Somaliland will not be able to work with the Somaliya Goverment or people once a genocide had occured the trust between people is gone. It doesnt help ether that the Somaliya people gov are working against the Independence of Republic of Somaliland , history has a long memory and the somalia gov are in the wrong side too many times on this issue.

[Tallaabo]

I am against Scotland leaving the United Kingdom because the 300 year old union between Scotland and the other three nations of the British Isles has worked so well and benefited all the British people. Together these four small nations literally took over the world militarily, politically, economically, and intellectually and in the process advance human civilisation beyond recognition. On the other hand the union between Somaliland and Somalia was a complete disaster. The people of Somaliland hoped that by giving up their sovereignty and uniting with Somalia, the union would produce a strong capable nation which we thought would compete well on the global stage to defend our interests and also free all the Somali people in the Horn of Africa from foreign domination. Little did we know that we were instead joining an ignorant, tribal minded black mafia.

[SomaliaRising]

kkkk alhamdulilah i dont hear snm propaganda on universal tv

[Dalmar1]

<cite>

@SomaliaRising

said:</cite>

kkkk alhamdulilah i dont hear snm propaganda on universal tv

 

RIGHT!,.....BEST THING EVER.

[SomaliaRising]

Dalmar1, next step is Somali Channel, They should use the term Maamulka Waqooyi Galbeed. The SNM clannists will accuse them of taking sides, banning Somali Channel from triangle clan enclave. Their hated propaganda will be found only on snm tv channels lol

[Dalmar1]

<cite>

@SomaliaRising

said:</cite>

Dalmar1, next step is Somali Channel, They should use the term Maamulka Waqooyi Galbeed. The SNM clannists will accuse them of taking sides, banning Somali Channel from triangle clan enclave. Their hated propaganda will be found only on snm tv channels lol

 

sxb everyone with the above average IQ level can tell that they will never be recognized and that their days of world begging is over!,.....Xamar will put stop to their ridiculous charade once and for all!

[xabad]

Your just regurgitating English talking points, the union only ever worked for England, making her rich, famous, powerful, the seat of government, etc. Scotland hasn't been so lucky, they have been impoverished while north sea oil wealth went into into enriching and propping up London. Scotland would've been as prosperous as Norway had it been independent. England gets the accolades and basks in the glory of the British Empire, but it is Scotsmen who have played an outsized role in its success. Wales, N.Ireland, Scotland are basket cases in European terms. Before that Ireland under English rule was even poorer before it become independent and prosperous.

 

Somalia and Waqooyi Galbeed is different, if the central clan that is agitating for independence were to say we will only secede with our clan boundaries i don't think many Somalis will have a gripe. But that isn't the case.

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Tallaabo made some good points i concur Scotland has benefited allot from the union do u know education in Scotland is much better than in England. The oil industry will not last long for 300 years the English the scotch and the welsh but their union really worked for the better of all many Scots want to join the EU , but the EU is not enthusiastic about it. As for Somaliland , somalia brought nothing but misery underdevelopment war destruction wars livelihood to be destroyed Italian mafia culture, even the Koonfurians seem to be not getting along for some odd reason. Its like the 2 people live in 2 complete worlds and coexisting is impossible if the koonfurians were more like Somalilanders, willing to compromise for the larger good had good cultural ethics were less violent and anarchists the 2 could have shined together under a genuine strong union. But the way the Koonfurians see a union is we take all u guys have the left overs and lets sing Somalia toosow. Thats why Somalilanders when it comes to politics and governance always take a few steps back when it concerns koonfurians. But the Koonfurians are good folks they have a nice dish have great music are good to interact with, but sharing a nation is practically impossible.

[Homunculus]

<cite>

@xabad

said:</cite>

Your just regurgitating English talking points, the union only ever worked for England, making her rich, famous, powerful, the seat of government, etc. Scotland hasn't been so lucky, they have been impoverished while north sea oil wealth went into into enriching and propping up London. Scotland would've been as prosperous as Norway had it been independent. England gets the accolades and basks in the glory of the British Empire, but it is Scotsmen who have played an outsized role in its success. Wales, N.Ireland, Scotland are basket cases in European terms. Before that Ireland under English rule was even poorer before it become independent and prosperous.

 

Somalia and Waqooyi Galbeed is different, if the central clan that is agitating for independence were to say we will only secede with our clan boundaries i don't think many Somalis will have a gripe. But that isn't the case.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. I commented before on the cognitive dissonance exhibited here by Somalilanders and some one pointed to me the imaginary special relationship that SLers feel towards the UK and their perception that if the UKs standing in the world diminishes then it will affect their quest for independence.

[Tallaabo]

<cite>

@xabad

said:</cite>

Your just regurgitating English talking points, the union only ever worked for England, making her rich, famous, powerful, the seat of government, etc. Scotland hasn't been so lucky, they have been impoverished while north sea oil wealth went into into enriching and propping up London. Scotland would've been as prosperous as Norway had it been independent. England gets the accolades and basks in the glory of the British Empire, but it is Scotsmen who have played an outsized role in its success. Wales, N.Ireland, Scotland are basket cases in European terms. Before that Ireland under English rule was even poorer before it become independent and prosperous.

 

Somalia and Waqooyi Galbeed is different, if the central clan that is agitating for independence were to say we will only secede with our clan boundaries i don't think many Somalis will have a gripe. But that isn't the case.

How is Scotland worst off because of the union? Back up your wild claim with evidence. The people of Scotland get as much if not more of everything the rest of the British people get. The schools, hospitals, universities, care homes, and every other social institution in Scotland is funded as much as those in the rest of the UK. The infrastructure in Scotland is just as good as those in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Almost every British and foreign owned company operating in the UK has invested in Scotland as much as they did in the rest of the UK. Britain's entire nuclear submarine fleet is based in Scotland and one of the two shipbuilding sites for Britain's Royal navy is also in Scotland. With only about five million people, the Scots were disproportionately represented in the last Labour governments running a country of 60 million people. So tell us how is Scotland disadvantaged in the union? And can you say the same thing about the failed union of Somaliland and Somalia?

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

All in All the Scots made Britain proud the Scots are even over represented most Scots even want to keep the pond even if they break away Also Scotland is the most prosperous region of the UK outside southeast England. GDP per head has been between 90 and 100 per cent of the UK average. It is considerably richer than Wales or Northern Ireland, educations is far greater the union has benefited Scotland more than any other region of the United Kingdom, i dont see how they will be greater if they go it alone, Britain today has allot to say in the NATO and the European union, we will know how they will vote in September i am a firm believer of self determination laakin maskax na wa lugu dara.

[xabad]

Xaaji, reer isxaaq really love the Briiitish, somaha ? LOL

 

if the union was so dandy, then scots wouldn't have gone for referendum. let's not forget there was no union in the first place, England just overpowered Scotland and ruled them ever since. Now is the time to right a historical mistake. The empire is dead.

[xabad]

<cite>

@Tallaabo

said:</cite>

How is Scotland worst off because of the union? Back up your wild claim with evidence. The people of Scotland get as much if not more of everything the rest of the British people get. The schools, hospitals, universities, care homes, and every other social institution in Scotland is funded as much as those in the rest of the UK. The infrastructure in Scotland is just as good as those in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Almost every British and foreign owned company operating in the UK has invested in Scotland as much as they did in the rest of the UK. Britain's entire nuclear submarine fleet is based in Scotland and one of the two shipbuilding sites for Britain's Royal navy is also in Scotland. With only about five million people, the Scots were disproportionately represented in the last Labour governments running a country of 60 million people. So tell us how is Scotland disadvantaged in the union? And can you say the same thing about the failed union of Somaliland and Somalia?

 

i could debunk every claim your made but i have no interest in other peoples issues, let them sort it out. i am for fairness, equity and justice as a principle.

 

Back to Somalia & W.Galbeed, the country was centralized around the capital under an inept, thuggish dictator who was not good for anyone. No region benefited and W.G is no exception, simple. Over-exaggeration & loquaciousness will not change facts.

[Tallaabo]

<cite>

@xabad

said:</cite>

Xaaji, reer isxaaq really love the Briiitish, somaha ? LOL

 

if the union was so dandy, then scots wouldn't have gone for referendum. let's not forget there was no union in the first place, England just overpowered Scotland and ruled them ever since. Now is the time to right a historical mistake. The empire is dead.

First, Scotland was not taken over by force and the union between Scotland and England was negotiated carefully and agreed on by all parties. It was a win-win agreement.

Secondly, the referendum was brought about by a persistent nationalist party which took control of the Scottish government but up to date the majority of Scottish people are pro-union.