Perhaps prejudice is the wrong word; but it certainly sways the vote against independence (and I've also seen articles quoting this, and implying that many people would vote no to independence for fear of losing the Pound).
Aside from financial reasons, what pros and cons are there for Scotland being a separate country? I'm curious, as in an age of multicultralism and a global economy, I would have thought financial reasons were the main reason for countries existing as they do, and not moving borders.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
I don't think it prejudices the vote, but it suggests that Westminster politicians value their Scottish subjects less.
I'm also fairly sure that they've said that the details of independence shouldn't be assumed, which now seems a little hypocritical.
In what way does it make them value the Scots less?
The details shouldn't be assumed, but when there is a cross-party consensus regarding a proposed currency union, it seems pretty safe to assume what the the rUK position will be.
If Scotland votes for independence, we will not choose whether we can have a currency union, or whether we can join the EU; we will get what we're given and will have to fight for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley's Dad
While I can't help admiring their determination I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the SNP are living in cloud-cuckoo-land and are making things up as they go along.
Tony, they have been for long, long time. It may be because they think that a vote for the SNP means a vote for independence, when really it was because Scottish Labour imploded; or they may simply be delusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaiporia
Perhaps prejudice is the wrong word; but it certainly sways the vote against independence (and I've also seen articles quoting this, and implying that many people would vote no to independence for fear of losing the Pound).
Aside from financial reasons, what pros and cons are there for Scotland being a separate country? I'm curious, as in an age of multicultralism and a global economy, I would have thought financial reasons were the main reason for countries existing as they do, and not moving borders.
Scotland could keep the pound in the way others can, but there would be very little chance of a currency union. The "Scottish Pound", already produced by the "Scottish" banks is already valued lower than the "British Pound" on the money markets. However, if Scotland want to join the EU there won't be much negotiation, as I think all new countries (which Scotland would be, whatever the SNP want to say) must join the Euro.
Other reasons for independence? Well, personally, I see no positive to independence at all! Those who do will say that Scotland is historically a more socially progressive country and therefore will become a 'fairer' society, but how that actually transpires is rather vague. Scotland does already have an internationally recognised national identity, if rather stereotyped. Some seem to think that this alone will allow Scotland to parade on the international stage, as everyone loves the Scots...
Auror, England and Scotland have been united for about as long as the United States has existed, in my opinion to the advantage of both. But in a modern democracy there is always scope for a whinge on the fringe, which is what we're seeing now on the part of the Scottish Nationalist Party (the SNP). They believe that an independent Scotland will be fairer socially and will cope financially; many people don't think that the latter is true and in any event it seems unlikely that the sort of independence the SNP is shouting about would be nearly as independent as they claim - they would still have to co-operate to a considerable extent with the rest of the UK and also with Europe to get by at all.
Further, while most of the West regards Scotland as charming and picturesque (all bagpipes, kilts and whisky) it actually has political clout as part of the UK. Independent it would lose that clout while at the same time reducing that of the rest of the UK. However, the Scottish people have been offered a referendum on independence which will take place in September. Then the Scottish people will decide for themselves. Current forecasts suggest that the vote will be "no" to independence, but these are only forecasts. Meanwhile, with the three main political parties at Westminster uniting in their view that an independent Scotland would not be able to keep the UK pound as their currency and a senior EU figure stating that it would be unlikely that an independent Scotland could join the EU, the SNP are becoming increasingly shrill in their determination to have whatever they want on their terms.
As the referendum gets closer the politics seem likely to become increasingly nasty - possibly equalling what goes on in your own US elections (as it sometimes seems to us over here!). Hope this helps give you an outline of what it's all about - and my apologies for repeating stuff I've mentioned in previous posts.
Tony.
PS. Can't easily think of an equivalent chunk of the US that might want to secede from your own union, but watch this space - you never know!
If I may ask, is this something that just Scotland gets a vote in, or as they are part of the UK does the rest of the UK get a vote too?
Scotland only. If the rest of the UK were to vote Scotland would have been kicked out long ago, and that's coming from a unionist! There is a lot of mis-information regarding Scotland's contribution to the UK as a whole.
Quote:
Also, is there a leader of Scotland? How would it be run? Like, there would be a Prime Minister and Parliament? Would they have to be elected? Financial issues and becoming an independent country aside, it seems pretty complex.
Since the union of Scotland and England, Scotland has always maintained autonomy over certain sectors: health, education and law & order. In 1997 there was a referendum regarding the devolution of certain other powers to Scotland to create a Scottish parliament, and this was successful.
Currently the Scottish parliament is led by an SNP government, with the First Minister (like the Prime Minister, basically) being Alex Salmond. Members of parliament are elected under a proportional representation system. This government is only responsible for certain areas, with Westminster being responsible for most issues. So right now, people living in Scotland have three parliaments (Scotland, UK, Europe), and I have FIFTEEN elected representatives!
In an independent Scotland there would still need to be elections, but it isn't fully clear whether the proportional representation system used (Additional Member System) would continue, as hardly anyone understands it! The Queen would remain the Head of State.
I think Auror that The One Who has answered your questions pretty comprehensively. But this is rightly going to be a fiercely ongoing debate. A couple of letters from today's Times:
" The vision of an independent Scotland looks more and more like that of the spoilt child who wants his independence, but in a home paid for by his parents, with an income provided by his parents, and with his parents prepared to bail him out if he spends too much."
And the second, relating to just who gets to vote in the referendum: "Surely if we are a United Kingdom, the English, Welsh and Northern Irish should be allowed a vote on its partial disintegration alongside the Scots".
I think the question as to who gets to vote (just those living in Scotland) is now settled, but my own view, mentioned earlier in the thread, is that if the Scots do vote "yes" then the rest of the UK should have their say in just what they should be allowed to take with them. And while it would be foolish to predict too much at this stage, I think it quite possible that the unreasonableness of many of the SNP's demands will indeed end up with their appearing to be the spoilt child referred to in the first letter above - and that it could rebound on them. For myself, as a staunch unionist, I do hope so ...
^ The BBC has quite comprehensive information about it, if you can call what is currently known as comprehensive! It also has some articles about the prospect of independence as seen from the perspective of other countries, which are quite interesting.
Further letters from today's Times (which I suppose tends to be read more by those in favour of retaining the union):
"Recent announcements from Westminster and Brussels suggest that an independent Scotland is unlikely to be able to share the pound or to join Europe. Instead of accepting these statements, Mr Salmond remains confident that he can renegotiate these positions after securing a Yes vote. So Scots are expected to vote first and then find out what they have voted for.
All of us, Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish, deserve better than this."
And another letter: "Alex Salmond is playing poker, gambling that George Osborne is bluffing in saying that London would not strike a deal with Edinburgh on a currency union. George Osborne is playing bridge - explaining to all parties what cards are in his hand and trying to make it clear the contract he is prepared to make.
Surely it is better for the electorate to know the position on a currency union before they vote? Otherwise they will be going to the casino rather than the polling station."
I don't read all our UK newspapers and no doubt there are letters in favour of Yes in some of them. But for the moment I remain much more convinced by the arguments put forward for No. And I freely admit that emotion plays a major part in my views.
So Scots are expected to vote first and then find out what they have voted for.
That is pretty much it in a nutshell. The SNP are giving what they hope for, their ideal, but cannot make any promises. Hell, there isn't even a guarantee that the would be the first ruling party of an independent Scotland!
A couple more letters from today's Times. The first from a Scot writing from Aberdeenshire:
"People who talk of "subsidising" Scotland or taking "its" oil seem to be wanting a situation where we don't co-operate, don't earn as much, and don't enjoy the enhanced fruits of a successful collective endeavour. We should be rejoicing that we all benefit from London's productivity, and all benefit from North Sea oil."
And from Oxfordshire: "On your front page yesterday you reported Susan Rice, the US National Security Adviser, as saying: "it's not in the interests of Ukraine or of Russia or of Europe or of the US to see a country split."
And Scotland?
Personally I think if there is a split, the division of assets should be negotiated jointly, with an independent referee with the final say. The UK's property belongs to the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland jointly and upon the break up of the UK should be shared fairly amongst all citizens. For some things, such as oil and fishing rights, there is clear international law regarding territorial waters, so in effect the decision is already known. Geography is going to dictate the outcome of other decisions, for example it'd clearly be absurd for Scotland to own a proportion of the London Underground. Other decisions on the division of the nation's institutions and assets are going to be a lot more complicated, but I believe should be based on relevant factors such as population size, land mass, population needs and historical factors.
I agree Heidi that if there is a break-up (a word which I think more properly describes the SNP's intentions) then clearly there must be a fair distribution of assets, though I cannot see it being amicably decided. I read some stuff yesterday which suggested that the boundary between what is Scotland's bit of the North Sea and what is England's bit is very much debatable and dependent on just which set of rules are applied. Oh what arguments there will be!
Meanwhile, from today's Times a further letter:
"Don Porter (letter, Feb 25) gives a list of Scotsmen who lived in England who benefitted the UK. He omitted to mention various Scotsmen who assisted with the downturn in the economy in 2008. These include the then Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and some Cabinet Ministers. The two banks heavily involved were the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS). This does not give much confidence in Scotland's ability to run its own economy if the Yes vote prevails."
I was just reading about a referendum for Venice breaking off from Italy. Scotland has been mentioned as an influence.
"Voting begins Sunday on a referendum on whether Venice and its surrounding region should secede from the rest of Italy, in an attempt to restore its 1,000-year history as a sovereign republic.
La Serenissima — or the Most Serene Republic of Venice — was an independent trading power for a millennium before its last leader was deposed by Napoleon in 1797. The republic encompassed not just Venice but what is now the surrounding region of Veneto and it is there that the vote will take place from tomorrow until Friday.
Campaigners have been inspired by the example of Scotland, which will hold its referendum on independence in September, and Catalonia, where around half the population say they want to break away from Spain"..
I didn't read any posts except the original one on this thread.
I'm an American-born of Irish decent, living in Canada. My family is 100% pro-Irish Independence, and I'll keep it at that to preserve their freedom lest the US gov't look into them.
I'm for Scottish independence, if that's what they want. The more smaller countries, the better. Especially when it comes to the British and American domination of the past thousand centuries. I'm all for community-based organizing, and what is a community if not a **** load of small areas that make agreements with other areas? Scotland is a big area. Do what you want. Don't let the English stop you from doing so.
But ceapach, Ireland got its independence in 1922, and would probably have got it sooner but for WW1. The only exception being Northern Ireland where the majority want to remain part of the United Kingdom. So the majority of the people of Ireland as a whole have got what they want, except for the minority of Nationalist extremists in Northern Ireland who would like the Province to be part of Eire (Southern Ireland). But I stress that they are a minority and we've just been round all that with the IRA's murderous campaign from 1970 onwards, which had the ignorant and unwarranted support of many Irish-Americans, particularly in places like New York on today, St Patrick's day, when collectors were going round saying "give $10, it'll get the life of a British soldier". Totally outrageous, particularly when said soldier was only there trying to keep the peace in a war started by a minority who were trying to impose their politic wishes against a legitimate majority by the use of the bullet and the bomb.
From this side of the pond it seems that there is an extraordinary and unjustified ignorance on the part of many Irish-Americans and that, even now, many of them appear to want the majority in the North to be somehow subjugated and forced into being part of the South. What a lot of over-romantic and emotive nonsense!
As for Scotland, they are about to have their referendum on independence in September, which is what this thread is all about. The Scottish people will decide their own future for themselves and will then have to live with whatever decision they make. They already have their own Parliament and a considerable degree of self-autonomy, but some of them - particularly the vociferous SNP - want more. But not all do, and the vote will decide.
You seem to be suggesting that small is good and that the more small nations there are the better. Should therefore the Provinces of Canada now all break away from the whole and have their own independence? If they did, I think they would end up as pathetic shadows of Canada as it now exists, but that's only my view. Meanwhile, take a long close look at Ireland and, if you can find any better solution than the current status quo, do let us know!
Well done for showing us that Epic. I hope ceapach that it will give you a more realistic idea of what went on in Northern Ireland, which as I've said earlier was a blatant attempt by a minority to impose their political aims on the majority by means of the bullet and the bomb.
MacGuiness was the head of the IRA in Londonderry and as such was up to his armpits in blood - yet he now walks free. He claims that the IRA were fighting "an army of occupation". This is a calculated and outrageous nonsense. The British Army went to the Province in the first place to protect the Catholic minority against some the excesses of the Protestant majority, but the IRA took over the Catholic cause for their own purposes. I myself served there three times and my aim, and that of my soldiers, was simply to keep the peace. We didn't differentiate between one side or the other (we often couldn't tell the difference). We simply tried so far as we could to make it difficult for either side to get away with using violence to further their aims.
Watch the video ceapach and then do let us know what you think ...
My thoughts returned to this thread when earlier today I heard the astonishing claim that if the Scots vote for independence in September, then they would not be allowed to vote in the UK General Election in 1915.
My astonishment lies in the idea behind this news: that somehow foreigners, from a foreign country (which is what the Scots will be if they vote Yes) should even be considered as somehow being eligible to vote in the General Election of a foreign country (which is what the UK would then be to them)!
Perhaps I am missing something here? Perhaps a Yes vote would not in some way be effective until after 1915? Can anyone please explain?
Tony (who continues to sincerely hope that the vote will be No, while fully accepting that the Scots must decide for themselves).
Perhaps I am missing something here? Perhaps a Yes vote would not in some way be effective until after 1915? Can anyone please explain?
I'll assume you mean 2015? I know you're a bit old-fashioned, but come on! But yes,indeed. It is because the date of 'independence' wouldn't be until 2016.
Thanks, the One Who, but what's a hundred years between friends! And anyway, is it fair that a lot of "about-to-be-foreigners" should vote in an election which will stand for 5 years?
I would say no, but then Scotland would still be a part of the UK and therefore subject to any change in legislation, so it makes sense that they should get some say in that. I imagine in the case of Scotland separating there would be another election in the rUK so as to re-address the balance.
I hope that this particular aspect of the referendum turns out to be academic, but there's little doubt that many Scots feel strongly on the overall issue, as of course they're entitled to.
I have to admit that I greatly resent the SNP's attempt to break up the Union which has existed for so long. And I also resent their assumption that if the Yes vote succeeds they can pick whatever cherries they fancy to take with them. As I've already said, I believe that if they do vote to go then the rest of UK should have a definite say as to what the split will allow them to take.
On the vote itself, I find it slightly ironic that I spend about a third of my year in the Western Isles (where I pay over £1,000 a year in Council Tax) but don't get a vote because our cottage is not my main home. I can see the logic, but I nevertheless have a greater genuine and vested interest in the outcome of the referendum than most people in the rest of UK.
However, there may be hope for me yet, as I see that there are ideas being mooted in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles that if a Yes vote succeeds then they will have their own referendum as to whether they may still remain part of the UK. What excitements we could yet be in for, with the SNP saying that while we won with a referendum, you in the Islands can't have one yourselves. But pure speculation at this stage ...
