|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Scottish Independence
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
The Irish precedent regarding the currency was that there was a "Saorstat Pound" created in 1928. The Irish banks all held deposits in London and the Saorstat Pound, later the Irish Pound, was exchangeable on a one for one basis with Sterling right up to when we joined the ERM in 1979 and the UK didn't. No seat in the Bank of England, no say on interest rates.
My knowledge of Irish history may be out here, but isn't a key difference between the Ireland of 1949 - 1979 and Scotland today is that the former was a small, largely agrarian economy, whereas the latter is a much larger, diverse economy including a significant financial sector?
Indeed, but I am asking readers to look at the "how" of Irish Independence and to compare/ contrast the Scottish situation vis a vis currency, constitutional issues and choices in fiscal policy. As I have a sick father and elderly and erratic mother to look after and do my degree I'm not about to go spoon feeding everyone with information but give them the tools to go digging themselves. All the issues I have cited aren't unique to the Irish situation, form a precedent for Scotland's situation and therefore shouldn't be dismissed.
As it happens, I don't believe independence would be in Scotland's interest.
--------------------
Older, bearded (but no wiser)
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
SPKid the conscription crisr in WW2 at least was another example of appeasement of Quebec - there was no conscription for overseas service, but anglophone Canadians were shamed into "volunteering" whereas Quebecers were not. There were brave francophones who volunteered, but one of yhem told me of his being abused by fellow Quebecers for fighting "for the english".
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Much of the scaremongering about currency is being done by people who know they'd have to execute a pretty smart 'reverse ferret' if Scotland voted yes to make sure there was a smooth path to Scotland keeping sterling.
For explanation see Iain Macwhirter currency wars playground style
quote:
perhaps the unionists should be careful what they wish for. If Scotland were to achieve full financial freedom, with its own central bank and floating currency, it would knock several tens of billions of pounds off the UK's balance of payments. Oil and whisky exports would no longer be included in the UK national accounts, and since the UK is running the worst balance of payments deficit in 30 years, this could be uncomfortable. Without Scotland's exports it could find itself in an old style balance of payments crisis.
Such decisions are not set in stone - where other countries have parted they have done things like share the same currency for a while and then have separate ones and then join the euro - as happened in the case of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. An independent country can make its own decision - it doesn't have to be what is currently in the White paper, but the reasons for choosing Sterling at least in the short term are sensible ones for both sides.
quote:
But the main reason this debate is offensive is that everyone knows that England would not refuse to allow Scotland to use the pound. Not even Chancellor George Osborne has ever said that it would. Former chancellor, Alistair Darling, chair of Better Together, has said it was "logical and sensible" for there to be a common currency with England after independence...The pound is anyway a joint creation by Scotland and England, as was the Bank of England which was, of course, founded by a Scot.
Personally I would lean more towards an independent currency, as I wouldn't want ties to the Bank of England to lead to a continuation of the bankrupt 'austerity' policies which have been discredited to the point where even the IMF considers them to be a mistake based on very flawed calculations.
It also needs to be remembered by non-Scots that the Yes campaign is multi-party. It is not just the SNP but The Greens, small parties to the left of Labour and ex-Labour supporters, basically everybody who doesn't want to see a continuation of things like this -
Cruel and Desperate:the new world of Scotland's poor
If you look at the electoral geography of England the fate of elections is determined by the key marginals around the edge of the almost solid Conservative voting block below the Tees/Exe line. To win elections Labour has to swing right to take those marginals and hence the Overton window of British politics swings right.
It's a myth that Scotland is the key battleground. The Scottish vote hasn't changed which governing party was elected in England - except very occasionally it would have resulted in a hung parliament - or even more occasionally prevented one and more often than not, this hasn't worked in Labour's favour - figures here.
So what happens is this - every couple of elections the Conservatives get elected ( or enabled by the Lib dems) and wreak havoc attacking the poorest and sickest and the provision of public services. Then Labour get in and never manage, or have the will, to reverse all the damage the Conservatives have done. This is getting more and more serious as more and more of our vital infrastructure is sold into foreign hands (railways, utility companies royal mail etc) and then EU law makes re-nationalisation extremely difficult. (so we end up in the hilarious situation where state companies from other countries can own our vital services but we can't!).
Basically without a 'Yes' vote, this is where we're going - to Hell in a hand cart with our vital services wrecked by the Tories. Labour isn't going to reverse this, it'll only occasionally, without much conviction, apply the brakes for a while before the jalopy lurches down the road again towards Toryville.
Before the current election I had vaguely heard of foodbanks - there were a handful of them - there are now hundreds of them. People are actually going hungry ( see the article Cruel and Desperate:the new world of Scotland's poor I mentioned above for the kind of casual cruelty which fuels this). Sick members of our family have been made more ill by the attacks of ATOS (who, let's remember, were originally given their job by Labour).
Unless you're a Tory voter or very rich, anyone who thinks the 'Britain' they're voting for is a vote for safety, is sadly kidding themselves. Even Scotland's separate NHS is not safe as income to Scotland can be choked at any time by another Westminster 'austerity government' and then despite being able to afford it, we might be prevented from funding it, just as currently happens with social security.
As for people who care about the BBC, you really think the BBC is going to survive a few more rounds of cuts and Tory re-election? Dream on. Charter renewal looms.
A No vote is a vote for Foodbank Britain, when we could do so very much better. We're a rich country, we shouldn't be in the shameful position where we can't feed or care for our poor. We didn't vote for that. It's evil. Meanwhile Rachel Reeves the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions vows to be 'tougher than the Tories on benefits'. Shame on her and shame on the useless Labour party.
Voting No is sadly, pretty much equivalent to voting Conservative, because in effect it's voting for Scotland to continue to be subjected to Tory governments while Labour fail to reverse their effects.
[ 29. November 2013, 02:16: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Countries don't die when they dissolve, break up, or disappear. They die when people stop believing in them. I watched my own country have a near-death experience. I went to bed that night and I didn't know if a recount would force us over a cliff into the abyss in the morning. I never want to feel that way again.
People never stopped believing in Canada. Sadly, people seem to have stopped believing in the United Kingdom.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Voting No is sadly, pretty much equivalent to voting Conservative, because in effect it's voting for Scotland to continue to be subjected to Tory governments while Labour fail to reverse their effects.
I have heard it predicted that if Scotland goes its own way, given political trends it will be very difficult for Labour to gain majorities in Westminster, given the importance of Scottish Labour seats. It would interesting if, by becoming independent to avoid Tory rule, Scotland wound up subjecting the rest of the UK to even more Tory rule. But I'm a Yank with no dog in this fight anyway.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
You did not have to live through the dreadful Thatcher years Soberpreacherskid. No Canadian govt has ever been horrid to PQ!_ they have all leaned over backwards to appease her. even tolerating the ethnic cleansing that brought me here! Were I lining in Scotland I would certainly want to make sure we would never suffer that sort of thing again. As I live in England I hope they don't secede, as England and Wales would be worse off without them, but I couldn't blame them if they go.
The Conscription Crises in both Wars weren't horrid? The Manitoba Schools Question, Regulation 17 in Ontario, they weren't horrid (they did no favours for Francophones in Manitoba and Ontario)?
..
No, SPK, they were nothing like the Highland Clearings, or the various rebellions, or like what Thatcher did to Scotland. Be careful to not equate historical importance within a country to horribleness. Otherwise, we'll be discussing the Family Compact and the Clergy Reserves and their role in the destruction of the Proto-Proletariat.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Democracies with a free media tend to not support long terms of one party controlling things. I suspect that splits on the left and right from within the Tory party would lead to something else winning an election. From what I've read, without the discipline instituted by the potential for electoral loss, it would take a Herculean effort to control the various factions within the Tory party. Heck, its taking quite an effort now.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The Highland clearances were over 200 years ago. Just saying.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Stonespring, I dealt with that point in my post.There is a link where it says "figures here" which gives the data which disproves what you've heard. It actually makes little difference electorally.
[ 29. November 2013, 04:01: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Like what happened to Newfoundland when the Cod ran out? Rivals anything Scotland has suffered, but Newfoundland is still in Confederation.
quote:
Be careful to not equate historical importance within a country to horribleness.
Don't lecture me. The '15 and the '45 were hardly Scots vs. English affairs, Scotland was divided and the Stuarts wanted England. You shouldn't get your history from 19th Century Romantics, Og.
Each of the Canadian episodes was the loss of cultural rights and a direct assault on a community's future. Or in the case of conscription, forced involuntary military service. And Scotland rivals this how, again?
Economics sucks. Believe, I know. But seeing as the pain of economic restructuring has hit every industrial country over the last thirty years, Scotland is hardly unique. I grew up in a town which was built around a major factory that currently employs only 10% of its former staff. And many of the other industrial employers have left too.
Food Banks have been common in Canada for 30 years, much as I am sorry to day.
As for the Poll Tax, I don't see one incident of bad government (which led to said government's downfall and the policy's withdrawal) which was quickly changed as a case for destroying a 300 year old nation. You deal with it, you get over it, you move on. It is the equivalent of trying to swat a mosquito with a 1000 lb. bomb.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Stonespring, I dealt with that point in my post.There is a link where it says "figures here" which gives the data which disproves what you've heard. It actually makes little difference electorally.
Oops. I'm up past my bedtime and high on turkey. Sorry about that.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Highland clearances were over 200 years ago. Just saying.
And Mrs Thatcher left office nearly 25 years ago. The fact that both are mentioned in the same breath suggests to me that a sense of perspective left this debate some time ago, too.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Whether events took place 2, 20 or 200 years ago is irrelevant when their effects are still felt. The iniquity of land ownership in rural Scotland is a direct result of the aftermaths of the '45.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
The Highland Clearances were introduced to this thread as the reason for the Scottish diaspora, of which otyetsfoma forms part. I doubt many Scots who will be voting next year factor the Clearances into their decision.
Tangent // That said, I'm also descended from Clearances Highlanders (Strath of Kildonan)and it's surprising how much oral history still trickles down. My gt gt grandparents (grandchildren of those cleared) were Land Leaguers in the 1880s, and there was still some political activism into the C20th. // end Tangent
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
It would interesting if, by becoming independent to avoid Tory rule, Scotland wound up subjecting the rest of the UK to even more Tory rule.
Maybe it would, and that's why I am hoping they will vote no. But the Scots have to decide for themselves what is best for Scotland.
I just wish (if they do vote yes) that the North of England could join them, because everything Louise says about the scandal of food banks, lack of investment in infrastructure etc. applies to most of England too. I'd rather be ruled from Holyrood than Westminster - though that's not saying very much.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'
1. As far as the Queen is concerned, the UK has granted independence to a lot of countries while allowing them to keep the same monarch. I live in one of them.
2. History suggests that Scotland may have just as much, if not a greater, claim on the monarch than England does. Personal union occurred when the English Tudor dynasty ran out.
3. I would respectfully suggest that the whole view point that 'if something is in London it must be English' would be one of the very biggest factors driving Scottish people to consider independence.
[ 29. November 2013, 09:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The Highland clearances were over 200 years ago. Just saying.
And Mrs Thatcher left office nearly 25 years ago. The fact that both are mentioned in the same breath suggests to me that a sense of perspective left this debate some time ago, too.
The American War of Independence ended about 230 years ago and the Second World War nearly seventy years ago. Let's not repeat history by ignoring it.
If we're considering whether Scotland is a net contributor to the UK economy then isn't that on the basis of what Jo Grimond (sometime MP for Orkney & Shetland) described as "Shetland Oil"?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If the Scottish want to keep the Queen as head of state and to also keep the pound as their currency, I have to ask, what is the point?
It's not independance. It might be something, but it isn't independance. It's like those 30-odd year olds who still live at home with their parents; whatever they call their living arrangements they are not independant.
And again, I have to point out, I live in a country that has kept the Queen (or rather the monarcy, including her predecessors) for 112 years since independence, and kept a matching currency for at least 31 years.
The views that some of you are espousing basically mean that the breakup of the British Empire should never have happened. It feels like you're only noticing when it happens to be on your geographical doorstep.
[ 29. November 2013, 09:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Perhaps if Scotland becomes independent, each remaining region of the UK should have a plebiscite on whether to join Scotland or remain with the United Kingdom. It would be amusing to see the UK reduced, perhaps, to a city state or perhaps the south-east of England, and the remainder part of a Greater Scotland.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
..and on a more serious point:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
1. As far as the Queen is concerned, the UK has granted independence to a lot of countries while allowing them to keep the same monarch. I live in one of them.independence.
And I live in another. However, I think the situation in these parts is different to how it would pan out in Scotland. New Zealand is in reality a de facto republic with a locally-appointed governor-general. There is no point in abolishing the monarchy. The Queen rarely visits. It is less of a foreign imposition than some of the trade deals and tax breaks that Uncle Sam forces on us.
A monarchy in an independent Scotland would more obviously shared with those nasty backward types in the South, and as such wouldn't be obviously authentically "Scottish".
[fixed ubb]
[ 29. November 2013, 09:20: Message edited by: Cod ]
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
The Campaign for Mercian Independence starts here!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Jest not. The Mercians are on the march, combining militarism, modern-day paganism and young ladies in corsets all under the flag of St Alban.
I expect Scottish nationalism went through this stage too, perhaps back in the 1920s, although doubtlessly the corsets were kept discreetly out of sight.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Who could resist a link like that!!
The suggestion to get really serious about national predigree, and to let the sons and daughters of Scots planters return to their spiritual roots in a greater Scotland which extends through much of Ulster, is a really nice one.
Joking aside, I'd agree that NI stability is not at all helped by all this.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
A monarchy in an independent Scotland would more obviously shared with those nasty backward types in the South, and as such wouldn't be obviously authentically "Scottish".
There's already a separation; our postboxes have an "ER" whereas English postboxes have "ER II"; the Honours of Scotland are on display in Edinburgh Castle; members of the royal family are referred to by their Scottish titles whilst in Scotland (e.g. as the Duke of Rothesay rather than as the Prince of Wales)
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Jest not. The Mercians are on the march, combining militarism, modern-day paganism and young ladies in corsets all under the flag of St Alban.
Yeah, but those guys is crazy, yo. Apart from the corsets thing, of course. Every country needs more of that sort of thing in its daily life ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) .
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
I can't understand why anyone would want to adopt independence but retain a monarch, however much they might feel that the monarch is historically "their" monarch and not England's anyway.
If you're going to be independent, use it as an opportunity to to modernise everything, starting with the democratic structure.
Does the white paper say anything about church/state relations?
And, for the Scottish amongst us - what's the actual feeling on the ground? A two second scan of google results for independence polls implies the no campaign are/were ahead, but the last poll was before publication of the paper.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm not sure of the feeling on the ground.
Personally, my preference would have been for increasing autonomy, with independence at some unspecified point in the future, so that the various problems and issues could have been tackled as they arose; more of a "child leaving home" than a "two spouses divorcing" scenario.
As that isn't an option, I'll be a Yes voter, but I'm not going to campaign or try to convince others.
That said, I've been surprised at how many people I know, whom I thought were politically aware but not enthusiastic, who have been posting "Yes" material on Facebook.
16 year olds will have the vote, but they appear to be more likely to vote "no" than "yes."
The UK media seems to be lagging well behind, raising points which have long been sorted here, or attributing the desire from independence to some sort of thoughtless "Braveheart" mentality. I have seen absolutely no appeal to that sort of nationalism whatsoever.
The discussions going on on the ground are dominated by the economy / employment / etc.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The American War of Independence ended about 230 years ago and the Second World War nearly seventy years ago. Let's not repeat history by ignoring it.
I'm sorry! How are you going to repeat the American War of Independence? ?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'
You'll find she's the Scottish Queen. The Scots are just letting the English share her.
The right of succession passes through Sophia of Hanover, her mother Elizabeth Stuart, and back to James VI of Scotland. James was King of Scotland only when Elizabeth was born.
Surely the Jacobite line is the true Scottish line since they didn't accept the Orange and Hanoverian usurpers. The Hanoverians were a distant offshoot of the Stuarts that the (English-dominated) parliament chose in their place.
Which would make the current heir to the Scottish throne someone very different. The last direct Jacobite claimant was Henry IX (Henry I of Scotland) who became Cardinal-Bishop in Rome and had no children. His heir was his nephew Charles Emmanuel IV, King of Sardinia, who abdicated in favour of his brother Victor Emmanuel I. As King of Sardinia, his heirs were promoted to kings of Piedmont and then Italy, finishing with Umberto II who lost the throne in 1946. But he died in 1983 so his only son Vittorio Emmanuel of Naples is the current legitimate Jacobite claimant to the throne of Scotland. He's probably expecting a call from Salmond any day now.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Perhaps if Scotland becomes independent, each remaining region of the UK should have a plebiscite on whether to join Scotland or remain with the United Kingdom. It would be amusing to see the UK reduced, perhaps, to a city state or perhaps the south-east of England, and the remainder part of a Greater Scotland.
And then we can get back to the serious argument as to whether the crown belongs to Lancashire or Yorkshire.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Another option might be for Scotland and the rest of the UK to share a military, foreign policy, currency, etc., while being otherwise independent. Maybe they could then show the rest of the EU how it's done ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
That's the other side of my inability to understand the point of independence—I'm rather cynical and don't have high expectations that a Scottish government could run things better than a British government. In the very least, I don't expect that it would resolve 250 year old injustices or prevent mean people from ever being elected. The pro-independence crowd could moderate their expectations, in my opinion.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Let's not repeat history by ignoring it.
I'm sorry! How are you going to repeat the American War of Independence? ?
No one is talking about repeating any specific historical event. But it is possible to have further instances of similar circumstances which led to those events e.g. Colonists manifesting a wish for autonomy from the mother country. The fact that there have not been armed risings against British rule in Canada and Australia shows that something may have been learnt from the American experience. OTOH, India and Africa possibly show the opposite.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Perhaps if Scotland becomes independent, each remaining region of the UK should have a plebiscite on whether to join Scotland or remain with the United Kingdom. It would be amusing to see the UK reduced, perhaps, to a city state or perhaps the south-east of England, and the remainder part of a Greater Scotland.
And then we can get back to the serious argument as to whether the crown belongs to Lancashire or Yorkshire.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Although I thought it was obvious ;-)
Gunfighting
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Surely the Jacobite line is the true Scottish line since they didn't accept the Orange and Hanoverian usurpers. The Hanoverians were a distant offshoot of the Stuarts that the (English-dominated) parliament chose in their place.
Actually the Scots were divided over the royal line (as were the English) and (e.g.) there were Scots on both sides at Culloden, and plenty of English Jacobites.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Both the accession of William of Orange and the then future Hanoverian succession were voted for by the Pre 1707 Scottish parliament. Hence they were Scottish decisions by the relevant Scottish body.
Oddly enough it was that unfortunate spIit with the American Colonies which led to the Westminster parliament asserting its absolute executive sovereignty unchecked by any 'fundamental law' - there was nothing parliament couldn't abrogate by a simple majority vote. Add that to a broken electoral system which concentrates disproportionate power in a handful of geographically close marginal seats and you get the problem that a government with no mandate outside England can do practically unchecked damage to the other UK countries. There aren't sufficient constitutional or electoral safeguards to stop it. Scotland has a far better, fit-for-purpose electoraI system for the Scottish parliament but its decisions only apply to matters not reserved to Westminster. There is a strong movement to develop a modern written constitution for an independent Scotland to, for one thing, address the lack of safeguards in the Westminster system in its current form.
The problem is twofold: a skewed and broken electoral system magnifies the problem that the SE of England has since the 1930s become increasingly different to the rest of the UK and what wins there often cannot gain consent outside England. This plus the constitutional problem of the sheer unlimited power of a Westminster government means that if they elect 'mean people' the other UK countries cannot adequately protect themselves.
If Scotland elected unspecified 'mean people', it would be very unlikely that it would make any difference to Westminster (see electoral results linked above). If a part of an independent Scotland took a penchant for unspecified mean people, the electoral system would go a long way to preventing a small group of marginals becoming decisive and a new written constitution could provide better safeguards against them.
Those are long term issues but in the short term we'd also be able to stop immediately the victimisation of helpless sick, working poor and unemployed people, many of whom are facing cold, hunger and despair.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The problem is twofold: a skewed and broken electoral system magnifies the problem that the SE of England has since the 1930s become increasingly different to the rest of the UK and what wins there often cannot gain consent outside England. This plus the constitutional problem of the sheer unlimited power of a Westminster government means that if they elect 'mean people' the other UK countries cannot adequately protect themselves.
Scotland is a full member of the Westminster parliament. Are you saying that an independent Scotland would be better able to protect itself from its democratically elected leaders? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
Those are long term issues but in the short term we'd also be able to stop immediately the victimisation of helpless sick, working poor and unemployed people, many of whom are facing cold, hunger and despair.
Your last paragraph seems to be looking more for a messiah than independence.
How do you know that Scotland would even end up with this constitution that will solve all these problems? Does the SNP do that great a job looking out for "the helpless sick, working poor and unemployed people" face "cold, hunger, and despair?"
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
In the very least, I don't expect that it would resolve 250 year old injustices
The perception outwith Scotland might be that independence is about "resolving 250 year old injustices" but I can assure you, no-one is talking about that here. The focus here is on the impact Independence would have on our economy, our employment situation and our ability to create a fairer society.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
In the very least, I don't expect that it would resolve 250 year old injustices
The perception outwith Scotland might be that independence is about "resolving 250 year old injustices" but I can assure you, no-one is talking about that here. The focus here is on the impact Independence would have on our economy, our employment situation and our ability to create a fairer society.
Hey, I didn't bring the Highland clearances up. Are you sure this perception is just from "outwith?"
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Does the SNP do that great a job looking out for "the helpless sick, working poor and unemployed people" face "cold, hunger, and despair?"
The devolved Parliament has a good track record so far; the smoking ban (brought in in Scotland before a similar ban came in in England) has measurably improved some health statistics; the "hungry for change" initiative with school meals (praised by Jamie Oliver when he subsequently promoted something similar in England) has been a success; our NHS doesn't seem to be experiencing the problems faced by the NHS in England (though that might be a sweeping generalisation); "curriculum for excellence" is too new to be assessed yet, but seems a good attempt to improve our education system, and certainly isn't creating the problems that Gove seems to be creating in the education system in England.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
To add to Firenze, what was learnt was 'responsible government' the term for devolution to the white settler nations which became in the early 20th century Dominion Status. This was beefed up after WWI to firstly make Dominions co-equal with Britain in the Empire and then to give effective independence under the Statute of Westminster in 1931 which meant that while the Dominions retained the Crown and were considered to be entirely British and could easily keep Sterling if they wanted, they became effectively independent. The core of the Statute of Westminster was that Westminster would not legislate for you without your parliament's consent. But thanks to racism this was extended too little, too late to non white colonies.
Dominion Status also applied to the Irish Free state which later rejected it to become a republic. Quite a few people in Scotland wanted it too, and a bill was even introduced for that at Westminster by the Rev. James Barr of the Independent Labour Party.
Many people don't know the history and are missing how close Alex Salmond's proposals are to the historically accepted model of Dominion Status which gave effective independence to the settler colonies - many of them with large Scottish diasporas like Australia, Canada and New Zealand (which was slower to fully adopt it but did after WW2 ).
It's ironic that this was done without any predictions that the sky would fall and that all those Scottish-diaspora infused countries would suddenly be cast into poverty. It puts the modern day dirty politics and scaremongering into a bit of perspective.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
OK, but "We'll be able to sort out our healthcare better" is a much more moderate expectation relief from all cold, hunger, and despair.
Edit: crossposted.
[ 29. November 2013, 14:57: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Good grief Louise, where to start.
First, the Dominions did not partake of a comprehensive Welfare State with Westminster, Scotland does.
Second, the Dominions did not, in general, share a tax base with the UK. Scotland does.
Third, under classic Dominion status, i.e. Canada 1867-1931, Westminster controlled Foreign Affairs and Defence. As every Canadian schoolkid learns, Canada entered WWI when the UK declared war, we had no individual say in the matter nor were we consulted.
You'll never get Trident out the Gareloch under Dominion status!
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Both the accession of William of Orange and the then future Hanoverian succession were voted for by the Pre 1707 Scottish parliament. Hence they were Scottish decisions by the relevant Scottish body.
Everyone agreed on William and Anne, but in 1703 the Scottish Estates passed a bill stating that their selection for Anne's successor would not be the same as the English selection unless England agreed to unfettered Scottish trade. England responded by passing an Act massively hampering Scottish Trade and the Scots responded by seeking to remove their soldiers from Marlborough's army. Eventually after some serious arm twisting by the English Parliament the Scottish Parliament agreed to George I's accession in the 1707 Act of Union, which linked the two kingdoms as the single Kingdom of Great Britain.
The accession of George of Hanover went directly against the Scottish Stuart law of hereditary sucession.
I was imagining that if this 1707 Act of Union was reversed, Scotland would want their own monarchy back, based on their own law of direct succession, rather than being forced to agree to the English decision.
[ 29. November 2013, 15:40: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
You know that constitution thing America has? It's there to protect you from your 'democratically elected leaders'. For weird historical reasons, partly to do with America, Britain is surprisingly deficient in that department.
If you read the article on poverty in Scotland which I linked above you'll get some idea of the arbitrary cruelty being heaped on the poor. Basically a willful and needless assault is going on which takes away basic safety nets. The worst policies are all opposed by the vast majority of the Scots electorate and could be taken off the moment those policy areas stop being reserved to Westminster. No messiah needed to stop this deliberate attack, just a chance to decouple ourselves from a badly broken electoral system and a Union which no longer works, given the different historical development of the area below the Tees Exe line and the lack of constitutional safeguards against what the governments it votes for can do (also the sort of thing you have a US Senate for to prevent similar problems ).
In fact I'd probably be happy if the area below the Tees Exe line (which has developed differently as it wasn't where all the coal, mountains and heavy industry was)declared independence. It's the part of the UK which economic and political research shows to be significantly different. But at the moment we don't have an adequate political system to provide checks and balances so those differences don't overwhelm the rest of the UK, so the best hope is for other UK countries to develop their own protections.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Scotland is a full member of the Westminster parliament.
And a fully outnumbered one.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
Update - I was wrong about the Jacobite line of succession. The Italian kings used the Salic law of succession which is different from the Scottish law (which allows women). According to the Jacobites, the hereditary rights of the Stuarts passed down to Francis II of Scotland, currently 80 years old, living in a palace in Munich.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Scotland is a full member of the Westminster parliament.
And a fully outnumbered one.
For a long time Scotland was over-represented in terms of the number of seats compared with population. There was a reduction in seats following devolution, but I still think there's a slight over-representation. I'm not 100% sure though.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You know that constitution thing America has? It's there to protect you from your 'democratically elected leaders'. For weird historical reasons, partly to do with America, Britain is surprisingly deficient in that department...
I have no doubt that the poor suffer in the British system. I just assume that they will continue to suffer in a Scottish system. As for "checks and balances," the United States is presently learning the consequences of checking government power too much. No one in our government has the power to even pass a budget.
Look, I'm not saying that independence can't have some positive benefits for Scotland. It just seems to me that independence is predicated on messianic expectations. I assume because "Independence for Scotland: vote for a slightly more efficient healthcare system for the future!" isn't quite as compelling a pitch.
[ 29. November 2013, 15:58: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
