Scottish Independence

[Liquid]

What guarantees that an independent Scotland will be a more pleasant, tax-friendlier haven for Sean Connery to come crawling back to?

Better the devil you know.

 

[jackargent]

It's a yes from me & I have a vote.
Fed up with Scotland being governed by people we didn't vote for.
The yes campaign has been remarkable - I have never seen anything like this level of engagement in politics in my (rather long) lifetime.

 

[daan]

 

[jackargent]

 

[Robin]

The Pound has now dropped to a 10 month low on the news that the Yes vote is narrowly ahead.

 

[Rallywagon]

Sorry if this was covered and I missed it, but what sort of government is going to be installed with this independence?

 

[CinnamonOD]

As I have read, they are going to be a constitutional monarchy... Are they planning to join the commonwealth?

 

[jackargent]

As I have read, they are going to be a constitutional monarchy... Are they planning to join the commonwealth?

Yes. We did host the commonwealth games this year after all.

 

[Famine]

It's a yes from me & I have a vote.
Fed up with Scotland being governed by people we didn't vote for.

Similarly, without Scotland returning so many Labour MPs to Westminster, we'll have a chance at being governed by people for whom we actually voted*.

In the last General Election, the results were:
Conservative - 307 seats (47.2%), 10.7m votes (36.1% turnout, 23.5% electorate)
Labour - 258 seats (39.7%), 8.6m votes (29.0% turnout, 18.9% electorate)
Lib Dem - 57 seats (8.8%), 6.8m votes (23.0% turnout, 15.0% electorate)
Others - 28 seats (4.3%)

If we remove Scotland from that picture, the results would be:
Conservative - 306 seats (51.8%), 10.3m votes (37.8% turnout, 27.2% electorate)
Labour - 217 seats (36.7%), 7.6m votes (27.8% turnout, 20.0% electorate)
Lib Dem - 46 seats (7.8%), 6.4m votes (23.4% turnout, 16.8% electorate)
Others - 22 seats (3.7%)

None of that coalition nonsense...


While I'm fully behind the sentiment about not being under London's yoke - as a Northerner I've got more in common with my neighbours 1 hour up the road than the ones 2 hours down it - I'm not entirely convinced it's a viable argument. Okay, so they're directly elected local representatives, but they don't seem any less a bunch of idiotic wastrels (how late and how over budget was the parliament building?) than the Westminster shower.

And then you have the only reason that independence is in any way financially viable... RBS. RBS that overstretched and bought NatWest right as the world financial markets were failing and was the first UK bank against the wall - and the first bailed out by the UK. If that were to happen again, Scotland would face the decision to let it fail (and take Scotland with it) or bail it out... Of course, the UK still owns rather a lot of RBS - and I'm not sure Salmond has been very vocal on this issue.

Without mentioning the currency issue, the share of the UK's debt, the likely reaction of Scottish headquartered businesses to extreme financial uncertainty, defence...


I get the desire to divorce oneself from the domestic abuser that is Westminster, but it looks almost completely unworkable. The No campaign (a political lobbying group) doesn't seem to have realised that it needs to bring actual information to the table to counteract the Yes campaign (a political lobbying group - isn't it fun have lobbyists determining your future?) which merely has to wave Saltires.

*Well, not me. I've not voted for anyone since I was able to vote

 

[Liquid]

Should Scotland secede, what would become of the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Whether the Queen remained the head of state or not, I can only imagine the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain as a term formerly (and/or formally?) represented the union of the three crowns; the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of Ireland. She still has a tenuous claim to an Irish 'throne' with Northern Ireland being part of the UK, despite it not being inclusive of Great Britain.

Great Britain (1707) = (Kingdom of England + honorific principality of Wales) + Kingdom of Scotland
Great Britain (1801) = (Kingdom of England + honorific principality of Wales) + Kingdom of Scotland + Kingdom of Ireland
Great Britain (1921) = England + Wales + Scotland
Great Britain (2015) = Just England + Wales?

Given that Wales was never a united, formal kingdom at any point in its history, this leaves the Kingdom of England as the only Kingdom, former or otherwise, in the realm, taxing the very definition of a "United" Kingdom.

Either way, my dream of a United Republic of Great Britain would seem dead in the water.

 

[daan]

I get the desire to divorce oneself from the domestic abuser that is Westminster, but it looks almost completely unworkable.

Next referendum is, "Should Yorkshire be an independent country?"

We could team up... We could become ScotYorkland. Although I suppose we'd have to have Cumbria, Northumberland, Durham and T&W in there too.

The No campaign (a political lobbying group) doesn't seem to have realised that it needs to bring actual information to the table to counteract the Yes campaign (a political lobbying group - isn't it fun have lobbyists determining your future?) which merely has to wave Saltires.

Working in a library in Scotland means we had to make both sides available for folk to peruse. The "yes" campaign is a 670 page book. The "no" campaign is a 6 page web page that we needed to print out.

Oh, and...

 

[Famine]

Should Scotland secede, what would become of the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Whether the Queen remained the head of state or not, I can only imagine the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We should just become "The Kingdom". All other considerations aside, it'd be a great name for either the villainous hegemony or plucky rebellion of a dystopian future...

Working in a library in Scotland means we had to make both sides available for folk to peruse. The "yes" campaign is a 670 page book. The "no" campaign is a 6 page web page that we needed to print out.

670 pages of Saltires and pictures of Mel Gibson?

 

[Liquid]

And Sean Connery. That tacksh-dodging shwine.

 

[Touring Mars]

Working in a library in Scotland means we had to make both sides available for folk to peruse. The "yes" campaign is a 670 page book.

In the Fiction section, I presume?

 

[doblocruiser]

I'll support it if the majority wants it. The nation's people are the only ones who should decide.

Agree! Just look what kind of a mess the EU is (where law was forced upon them)

If Scotland wants to be independant, they've got my blessing. Maybe they will have some difficulties in the beginning but they are a free country after. It's worth a lot I think.

 

[Liquid]

@doblocruiser But Scotland leaving the UK doesn't mean they'll be a sunny republic fresh from British and EU shackles.

The entire point of criticism of the Yes campaign is that it's independence now, issues later. We don't know what the plans are for Scotland and the EU, EEA, Schengen or any number of supranational bodies:

These are issues which voters need to know about and should be informed about before marking their ballots.

*Obviously there are many, many more issues than that, but these were addressing your point specifically.

 

[doblocruiser]

@Liquid Thanks for that image (which will change a lot the comming years) and explanation. I understand very well it won't be a sunny republic but at least they have got the courage to give it a shot. I agree that people should be well informed of both sides.

 

[daan]

We should just become "The Kingdom".

Should it not be the Queendom?

Which sounds like some kind of rubber product for... yeah, anyway...

 

[Famine]

@Liquid Thanks for that image (which will change a lot the comming years) and explanation. I understand very well it won't be a sunny republic but at least they have got the courage to give it a shot. I agree that people should be well informed of both sides.

There are a significant number of issues that neither side is even touching on - new Scotland would be outside every single one of those groups and would have to apply to join them.

I mean, let's take Schengen. The UK is outside Schengen, so we have immigration checkpoints on all borders. Scotland will be outside of Schengen too (though it's effectively irrelevant whether they are or aren't because they only have one land border - with a non-Schengen country) and that means they'll need to run Scottish Immigration points on all the ports and airports, rather than using the UK Border Agency. But what of the land border? They'll need to negotiate a free movement pact with The Kingdom or erect a border barrier with immigration controls on the A1, M6/M74, A68, A7, A697, B7076, B6138, B6352, B6396, B6350, B6461 and a number of minor roads - including the Pennine Way which crosses from one side to the other about 20 times down its route. Not to mention the railways - the East Coast Mainline would either have to stop at Berwick or have passport controls at the stations. There's about 100,000 border crossings a day, so there'd be queues. The UK can probably bear its share of the cost of putting UK Border Agency personnel and facilities up, but can Scotland?

And that's just Schengen. What about the European Union or the European Economic Area? Will Scotland apply to be part of the EuroZone and adopt the Euro as currency - or will Salmond get his wish to retain the UK pound - and financial dependence on the UK. What about NATO or the UN? Forget G7, G8 or G20. And, for that matter, what political clout does Scotland bring to get its way in these international agreements the way the UK does?

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm off to get my lunch - and to cast my vote.

 

[Dotini]

@doblocruiser We don't know what the plans are for Scotland and the EU, EEA, Schengen or any number of supranational bodies:

I have a deep skepticism of supranational bodies. They apply the shackles from afar. Your chart omits NATO, the most important of all. NATO gives you the obligation to go to war for Turkey.

 

[Liquid]

I get your point, but that particular Euler diagram is strictly for European supranational bodies, give or take some argument over Kazakhstan. NATO has at least two major members from the west side of the Atlantic and wouldn't fit the imagery of the chart.

Depending on one's perspective, the District of Columbia applies shackles from afar when one considers how far the Feds reach in a literal geographical sense.

 

[Dotini]

I get your point, but that particular Euler diagram is strictly for European supranational bodies, give or take some argument over Kazakhstan. NATO has at least two major members from the west side of the Atlantic and wouldn't fit the imagery of the chart.

My point was that Scotland is currently in an unenviable subnational status, a poor place from which to determine its own future.

 

[Liquid]

Well, as Famine, myself, daan, Touring Mars and other have pointed out in a few threads over the last year or so, there are so many things to renegotiate should Scotland gain independence. It's a bit of a cluster:censored:.

 

[Dotini]

First thing to consider: Do I want to be a kneeler?

 

[QuattroDelta]

Referendum yes, but don't support the independence. Why? Because I think that now we should start removing boundaries, not adding other ones.

Same goes to Catalonia.

 

[Touring Mars]

My point was that Scotland is currently in an unenviable subnational status, a poor place from which to determine its own future.

Don't you think, then, that the Scottish government's position on full EU membership is a tad inconsistent with the idea of full independence?

 

[Dotini]

Don't you think, then, that the Scottish government's position on full EU membership is a tad inconsistent with the idea of full independence?

From a position of full independence, Scotland could if it so desired, do something about its EU membership.

Currently riding in the other guy's car, Scotland is a passenger, or back seat driver.

 

[Scaff]

From a position of full independence, Scotland could if it so desired, do something about its EU membership.

Currently riding in the other guy's car, Scotland is a passenger, or back seat driver.

Apart from the current EU members that may well block any attempt by a newly independent Scotland to join the EU.

Spain would potentially block it as it would send a message to the independence movements in Catalonia and the Basque Country that they could join if they were independent. Potential a similar issue comes from Belgium with regard to Flanders.

So Scotland may well want to do something about EU membership if it desired, that doesn't mean it would happen.

 

[Liquid]

Whereas wanting to become an EU member means they might simply become a backseat passenger in a larger MPV, but this time without a booster seat.

Edit: And then you factor in Scaff's points about anti-independence movements in other countries. Germany, one of the main players, could also be one of those regarding Bavaria.