Scottish Independence

[Brend]

Not one person has said there isn't huge risks to going independent, and like I've said one hundred times, I don't trust anything being 'revealed' this late into the who fiasco since there have been thousands of votes already accounted for and multiple 'twists' on anything that's been revealed.

Anybody changing their minds now, never cared enough in the first place and are just going on who is shouting the loudest.

I'd rather see a difference try and be made than accept what's happening and get our new powers*.

If it goes balls up? Ah well, I'm sure we won't be the only ones who suffer from it and thus the UK will be 'reunited'. A hopefully conclusion? I'd say anything said by anyone is just 'hopeful' they turn out to be right.


*From a statement 12 months ago.

 

[Touring Mars]

Actually no because the link wasn't my point, the first paragraph was. I was saying all 3 parties are falling into the trap set by Salmond.

I wouldn't call it a trap... there's massive support for more devolution - infact, I would imagine that support for more powers to the Scottish government is nigh on unanimous (in Scotland anyway).

Salmond and the SNP stand to gain politically no matter what (at least in the short term), although a No vote will end independence hopes for another 20 years at least... and, as one commentator points out, when will the political stars be so perfectly aligned for the nationalists again? (An SNP overall majority, an unpopular Tory PM, off the back of a global recession etc.)

For me, it is simply that the case for independence over increased devolution has not been made, because most of the benefits touted by the Yes campaign can be delivered with more devolution, and many of the (major) drawbacks can be avoided or mitigated against by remaining in a financial and political union with the vast majority of others with whom we share these islands.

As for the idea that we can go back to the UK cap in hand if it all goes wrong, that is not going to happen - or, at the very least, we would most certainly have to agree to terms that are considerably less favourable than they are today - does anyone seriously think that this would be a good idea for Scotland?

 

[Liquid]

I wouldn't call it a trap... there's massive support for more devolution - infact, I would imagine that support for more powers to the Scottish government is nigh on unanimous (in Scotland anyway)

This.

For me, it is simply that the case for independence over increased devolution has not been made, because most of the benefits touted by the Yes campaign can be delivered with more devolution, and many of the (major) drawbacks can be avoided or mitigated against by remaining in a financial and political union with the vast majority of others with whom we share these islands.

This.

As for the idea that we can go back to the UK cap in hand if it all goes wrong, that is not going to happen - or, at the very least, we would most certainly have to agree to terms that are considerably less favourable than they are today - does anyone seriously think that this would be a good idea for Scotland?

And this.

Once again, an independence movement with a plan would be a great thing to debate. At the moment what is being asked of is clearly a call for greater autonomy. Perhaps the guise of an independence movement is the only way to gain autonomy as a form of appeasement. Simply asking for autonomy might not gain any traction at Westminster.

From a Welsh perspective, this is a unique time for us too. Scotland has more autonomy than Wales at this point in time already, and the warm utopia of an independent Scotland has piqued the interests of the Welsh nationalists. I myself don't consider myself a nationalist per say, but I certainly am Welsh first and British second from a personal point of view. A sprightly 23 year old I may only be, but I haven't seen the nationalist movement so openly and freely discussed over here for some time.

I would most definitely vote no to a Welsh independence movement all things considered right now, but I would support more devolved powers. Many of the people I follow on Twitter, including the First Minister's persona account, have said that whatever powers are granted to Scotland should also be conferred to Wales. I pointed out that they should be offered to Wales and allow us to vote on them. These things definitely should be voted on and not just 'given' like a Christmas present.

Would you, TM and @daan, be happy with more autonomy and if so, how much more?

 

[jackargent]

I would almost certainly have voted for devo Max had it been on the ballot paper. Cameron insisted on a yes/no question, thus forcing me to consider independence much more seriously than I otherwise would. The more I read, the more I considered, the more I debated, the more convinced I became that independence is the answer. Were devo max magically to appear on the ballot paper, I would still vote for independence. Thank you Mr Cameron for forcing me to make this decision.
As for no referendum for 20 years after a No vote, I think you are right...as long as Westminster delivers on its promises.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Sorry to mix in, but I find this "independence" debate very intriguing. Independence in today's world, is a relative concept. Most countries in Europe and in fact the world are now inter-dependant. Some are stronger than others (Germany is the strongest country in Europe, and I do mean Europe, not "continental Europe"), some are weaker (like my own country), all this is self-evident.

Any political science book will grant Scotland the "nation" status because it has its own people, its own history, and its own culture, only lacking a widely used own language for the usual requirements to achieve that status. (although that happens a lot in "out of Europe former colonies", like the USA and Brasil - these usually have had their native languages, and indeed their native peoples, all but erased by the colonial powers).

But why, in this day and age, would a "Nation" that is not independent for a few centuries now - and peacefully so - want to achieve the "State" level?

It can't be economics, if it was I would be asking for Portugal to become part of Spain, and Catalunya wouldn't be flirting with the "independent" idea also. Size does matter so "Independence is counter-intuitive.

SO, it must be politics. And indeed it is. Does a certain nation's own people want independence? As in, I want the head of my government to be a peer among the heads of government from other countries? I want my army to go abroad only if my country decides it goes? I want to be on my own, for better or worse?

That's what asking for independence means.

 

[Famine]

I would almost certainly have voted for devo Max had it been on the ballot paper. Cameron insisted on a yes/no question, thus forcing me to consider independence much more seriously than I otherwise would. The more I read, the more I considered, the more I debated, the more convinced I became that independence is the answer. Were devo max magically to appear on the ballot paper, I would still vote for independence. Thank you Mr Cameron for forcing me to make this decision.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/01/electoral-commission-report30012013

 

[PeterJB]

If the public vote yes in the referendum, is it with immediate effect? Or do we have several months before the independence comes into effect?

 

[Roger the Horse]

If the public votes yes on independence, there will be several months of unexpected, incredibly complicated, and absurdly tedious bureaucracy combined with a huge decline in public support before the whole independence plan gets scrapped altogether.

 

[Liquid]

If the public vote yes in the referendum, is it with immediate effect? Or do we have several months before the independence comes into effect?

Years.

 

[Touring Mars]

If the public vote yes in the referendum, is it with immediate effect? Or do we have several months before the independence comes into effect?

Scotland will not be independent until at least March 2016 - but it could take far longer than that. It could also not happen at all, although that is arguably not very likely in the event of a Yes win - especially an emphatic one. What will happen with immediate effect is how people and markets etc. will react, and that is likely to have tangible effects - in turn, those effects could easily sway popular opinion back in favour of abandoning plans for independence (or they may indeed galvanize support for it). A Yes vote is not a guarantee of anything, but it does give the Scottish First Minister a mandate (of sorts) to proceed.

 

[Famine]

Piers Morgan says that if the result of the vote is "No", he'll go back to America.

Come on, people of Scotland. Make it happen.

 

[Keef]

Why on earth would people with such heritage not want to be their own entity? Don't settle for "good enough", that's what the English do. Wear your kilts into battle and fight like men!

 

[Tornado]

tell me more

Noting how amusing it is that you are "unique" because you can see two sides to every story doesn't really hold when there aren't two sides to every story.

 

[Stotty]

**** devolution... you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it, and it surprises me that Cameron is being so bloody soft.

If the Scots want to be independent, let them go.

Don't give them more self governing powers AND still let their MP's sit in Westminster influencing British laws... that's just a load of bollocks.

 

[Liquid]

**** devolution... you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it, and it surprises me that Cameron is being so bloody soft.

If the Scots want to be independent, let them go.

Don't give them more self governing powers AND still let their MP's sit in Westminster influencing British laws... that's just a load of bollocks.

Influencing British laws is fine, that extends to the whole kingdom. The West Lothian question is about influencing English only laws or Welsh only laws. This is what devolution is for; to enable matters which only affect Wales, or only affect Scotland or only affect Northern Ireland to be debated by those concerned.

Funnily enough, the only part of the UK which has no devolved Parliament and is subjected to the West Lothian question is England. Yet when one brings up the idea of a devolved English Parliament, it's frequently met with remarks of "Duh, the Westminster is the English Parliament." Well, it's not. It's the British Parliament.

The English devolutionists need to make their voices heard otherwise they will continue to have their England exclusive matters voted on by Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs

 

[Stotty]

Sorry, then I shall re-phrase... voting on ANY law that they can subsequently choose not to implement in another part of the UK (be that NI, Wales or Scotland).

Ridiculous situation.

One upside of Scotland going independent is we're unlikely to ever see a Labour government again.

 

[Roger the Horse]

In my view all power over the entirety of Britain and Ireland and Scandinavia and Iceland and Greenland and the Faroes should be given to the Scottish Parliament with nobody else getting any say in the matter of how things are run but the Scots. So there.
































No wait. That's a terrible idea.

 

[Liquid]

Sorry, then I shall re-phrase... voting on ANY law that they can subsequently choose not to implement in another part of the UK (be that NI, Wales or Scotland)

You have raised a point I hadn't considered; in the event of a Yes vote and an actual transition to independence, what happens to sitting members of the British Parliament representing Scottish constituencies in the process? They indeed will be voting on bills which aren't in their jurisdiction.

Electorally speaking though, Scots would still have an influence on British general elections much like the Irish do now. Due to grandfather clauses, Irish citizens can vote in British general elections and have some limited representation in the UK but not the other way around. There's no reason why Scotland might not have the same grandfather clauses extended to them.

 

[Famine]

Interesting table incoming:

It's a breakdown of the percentage of electorate per electoral region and likelihood of that region voting yes/no. If you regard 0-3 as safe No and 7-10 as safe Yes:

Safe No: 24.5%
Safe Yes: 33.1%
Marginal: 42.4%

Well, that'll be fun. Interesting where the safer Yes/No regions are clustered.

Obviously as it's come from the Scottish Parliament, it's another chunk of BBC bias...

 

[Liquid]

Source: Credit Suisse

Bias.

 

[Stotty]

I assume they will be removed from Parliament, hopefully with immediate effect... if Scotland chooses independence, they won't be UK citizens, so how can they sit in Parliament?

And anyone who wants to vote in the next general election should have to choose if they want to vote in Britain or Scotland. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Roger the Horse]

If Scotland votes for Independence, then the Scottish MPs will leave the Parliament of the United Kingdom if and when the time comes that Scotland leaves the union (Most likely 2016). Until that point Scotland will continue to be a part of the United Kingdom and Scottish Nationals will continue to be citizens of the United Kingdom, with the right to vote for MPs in United Kingdom general elections.

If Scotland does vote yes, this will have the unfortunate side effect on the rest of the UK of likely resulting in the next Parliament being highly unstable, as well as likely effecting the current parliament by making Cameron look like even more of an idiot than he already does. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson will likely be laughing his head off.

 

[Touring Mars]

Scotland is not going to become independent on Friday.

There is a question mark about Scottish MPs if the General Election is held on schedule in 2015, as once an MP is elected for a term, they can rightly serve that term - but they would effectively be sitting there for 4 years with no-one to represent. This is why some people are calling for the 2015 General Election to be delayed until after March 2016, but given that the date of independence is not written in stone and highly likely to be subject to some delays (potentially years of delays) it is not feasible to postpone the 2015 General Election. My guess is that some new legislation will be put in place to allow Scottish MPs to serve until the date of independence, and after that they will be stripped of their voting powers or Black Rod will change the locks on the Houses of Parliament and not give Scottish MPs a new key.

 

[Stotty]

And that creates another issue...

If Labour have a majority in the 2015 GE, and subsequently lose it when the Scottish MP's are stripped of their powers there will need to be another election... the Tories would immediately implement a 'no confidence vote' and Labour would be gone.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Delaying the next general election would be awfully hypocritical for the government that bought in fixed terms between general elections...

In fact, considering that, it'd also be incredibly hypocritical for the tories to implement a vote of no confidence.

 

[Stotty]

In fact, considering that, it'd also be incredibly hypocritical for the tories to implement a vote of no confidence.

Of course it wouldn't.

The Government wouldn't have a majority and therefore wouldn't be able to implement any legislation.

Unless Labour went to the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call a GE themselves, a no confidence vote, leading to a 2nd GE would be the natural flow of events to ensure we had proper Government.

 

[Touring Mars]

And that creates another issue...

If Labour have a majority in the 2015 GE, and subsequently lose it when the Scottish MP's are stripped of their powers there will need to be another election... the Tories would immediately implement a 'no confidence vote' and Labour would be gone.

I mentioned that possibility at lunch time today.

It's not all that unusual to have elections sooner than expected though - I think the rUK would deal with it and things would return largely to normal after a few years - that said, I do also expect that it will create a great deal of instability and uncertainty, the economic consequences of which could be immense.


edit: The Herald has tentatively backed a No vote, which is a major surprise to me. It has qualified that by saying that it is not against independence and hints that independence is the long term goal, but for now it backs a No vote...

 

[Stotty]

It's not all that unusual to have elections sooner than expected though - I think the rUK would deal with it and things would return largely to normal after a few years - that said, I do also expect that it will create a great deal of instability and uncertainty, the economic consequences of which could be immense.

True.

The reason the UK electoral timings changed was to prevent political parties moving the date to suit their own needs. A change such as this would override that.

For the economic benefit of both nations, a no vote would be best. But most people voting Yes will be voting with their hearts, not their heads.

 

[Touring Mars]

most people voting Yes will be voting with their hearts, not their heads.

Unfortunately this is all too true.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Few questions from an interested outsider:

If Scotland becomes an independant country, will it be a monarchy or a republic?

If monarchy, will the Queen or King be the same as in England (like I suppose happens with Canada and Australia)?

If the same, will he/she have two separate coronations?

If separate, does this mean the stone of Scone will not leave Scotland ever again?