Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Scottish universities (and, for that matter, English and Welsh universities) are desperate to take on international students with the associated substantial fees they bring with them.

---

Interestingly, independence may prove financially damaging to Scottish universities. At the moment they can charge £9,000 per year to rUK students while keeping their fees for Scottish and other EU students lower. They can do that because Scotland is part of the UK (where £9k fees are the standard), but should they become separate countries within the EU then EU rules will force Scottish universites to charge UK students the same fee as they charge to "Home" (Scottish) ones.

---

quote:

---

this Government had little option but to allow Scottish institutions to set their own tuition fees for students from the rest of the UK at a rate no higher than the maximum annual tuition fee rate charged to such students by universities elsewhere in the UK.

... In 2012/13, the first year of the new arrangements, 4,800 students from the rest of the UK were accepted through UCAS to study at Scottish universities

---

quote:

---

Following independence, the Scottish Government proposes to maintain the status quo by continuing our current policy of charging fees to students from the rest of the UK to study at Scottish higher education institutions.

...

Our policy is based on the unique and exceptional position of Scotland in relation to other parts of the UK, on the relative size of the rest of the UK, on the fee differential, on our shared land border and common language, on the qualification structure, on the quality of our university sector and on the high demand for places. We believe that these distinctive characteristics will enable us to justify objectively the continuation of our current policy in a way which is consistent with the principles of free movement across the EU as a whole and which is compatible with EU requirements.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
One other point, though, is that a Scottish undergraduate degree is a 4 year degree, whereas English undergraduate degrees are 3 years. This might dampen some of the enthusiasm for a Scottish University education.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
tangent alert

quote:

---

posted by orfeo
A big part of our national history involves asserting that the British completely stuffed us around at Gallipoli in 1915, and that we were better off not blindly following them.

---

Which is fine and dandy. Australia and New Zealand did suffer large numbers of casualties at Gallipoli - as did the UK, France, India and Newfoundland. In fact, French fatalities outnumbered Australian. And a huge number of casualties at Gallipoli were nothing to do with the fighting and all to do with the climate, appalling sanitation, lack of water and no effective disease control.

---

I wasn't intending to suggest that the Australian mythos surrounding those events was necessarily accurate. Just that when it comes to 'nation-building' and national history, the perception that we were not British and couldn't rely on the British is a significant component.

It's hard to avoid the irony in SPK's notion of nation-building, in that he thinks it only points one way. It doesn't. One of the main ways you build a new nation is by breaking away from an old one. Apparently that's absolutely fine when it comes to Australia or Canada, but a disastrous proposition when it comes to Quebec or Scotland - or presumably Western Australia if they ever consider leaving again.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
One other point, though, is that a Scottish undergraduate degree is a 4 year degree, whereas English undergraduate degrees are 3 years. This might dampen some of the enthusiasm for a Scottish University education.

---

It's a reflection of the differences between English and Scottish education systems. GCSE and standard grades are approximately equivalent. But, pupils in Scotland will sit one year highers in more subjects than A levels in England and Wales. Many pupils will take an extra year at school either sitting additional subjects at higher, or taking advanced highers in some (that then get close to A level) especially those wishing to attend university down south.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So, just to throw this out there, the North Sea Oil reserves, the thing that's supposed to make it all possible, are getting pretty close to being tapped out. Estimates say that 76% of the oil has already been sucked out of the ground. Signs of the fields going dry are a dramatic decline in production coupled by a dramatic increase in cost. Which is exactly what happened in 2012.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
A technical question: If Scotland opts for independence, would the UK still exist? I.e. would there be such a thing as the rUK, given that the Kingdom is no longer united, and accordingly no longer exists as such? Or would it still one kingdom, but with two sovereign countries (plus a number of other sovereign Commonwealth Nations)? If so, what would the rUK call itself (r-UK being a rather silly name)?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So, just to throw this out there, the North Sea Oil reserves, the thing that's supposed to make it all possible, are getting pretty close to being tapped out. Estimates say that 76% of the oil has already been sucked out of the ground. Signs of the fields going dry are a dramatic decline in production coupled by a dramatic increase in cost. Which is exactly what happened in 2012.

---

Very well, agreed, Scotland should be thinking beyond this whole annoying oil debate to a means to sustain herself without it (the oil will run out with or without independence). Meanwhile, what exactly is the wisdom of staying in the Union and being dependent on the City of London - another volatile and (probably) declining source of income?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

something so uncertain for something so silly like national pride.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Everyone's got a right to determine their future. There's nothing uniquely Scottish about that.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Gee D: The real question, and one alluded to very briefly way upthread, is who comprises the "we" who have the right to determine their future. Is it limited to the Scots, or the entire UK? If the Scots, how is "Scotness" to be determined? Those on the roll for a Scots electorate? That would disenfranchise many who consider themselves Scots, but for the time being are living and working elsewhere in the UK.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Gee D: The real question, and one alluded to very briefly way upthread, is who comprises the "we" who have the right to determine their future. Is it limited to the Scots, or the entire UK? If the Scots, how is "Scotness" to be determined? Those on the roll for a Scots electorate? That would disenfranchise many who consider themselves Scots, but for the time being are living and working elsewhere in the UK.

---

I wonder how they did this in other cases, for example the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
A technical question: If Scotland opts for independence, would the UK still exist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
If so, what would the rUK call itself (r-UK being a rather silly name)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Gee D: The real question, and one alluded to very briefly way upthread, is who comprises the "we" who have the right to determine their future. Is it limited to the Scots, or the entire UK? If the Scots, how is "Scotness" to be determined? Those on the roll for a Scots electorate? That would disenfranchise many who consider themselves Scots, but for the time being are living and working elsewhere in the UK.

---

I wonder how they did this in other cases, for example the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The more interesting question is of flags. Scotland will obviously use the Saltire. What will the UK use, given that the union flag won't really work?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I wonder how they did this in other cases, for example the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

When the Czech Republic and Slovakia went their separate ways in 1993, they started with a common currency, then decided to have separate ones, until 2010 when both started negotiations to join the euro. This is how things happen in international finance, where countries must react to changing circumstances and negotiate with supranational entities like the European Union.

Only in Britain do we find this portrayed, offensively, as one country, Scotland, begging at the door of another. Scotland is being scolded for seeking control of its own affairs by people who don't understand how currencies work. Alistair ­Carmichael's posturing is particularly egregious since he is a member of a party, the LibDems, who favour a federal reform of the UK and membership of the European monetary system, which involves complex currency and regulatory issues.

---

It's neither an insuperable problem nor the bogeyman it's been made out to be.

The pro Union 'Better Together 'campaign made a gaffe earlier this year - they admitted to a journalist that they nicknamed their work 'Project Fear', as their aim was to make voters in Scotland afraid to vote Yes by raising as much doubt and fear as possible. It's been very effective.* Very few people understand much about currencies, so it's easy to scare people, especially in the wake of the recent recession. I know I'm having to learn all this from scratch.

By the way, when I was mentioning Scotland's difference to the various Southern countries which are raised as 'Ghastly Warnings' of the danger of any change in currency arrangement, I was thinking of relatively modern history. Scotland was one of the earliest countries to industrialise and to have free universal education, so it's very different from countries which were predominantly agricultural and less-industrialised until much later.

A small historical digression on Britishness in Scotland- Scotland profited hugely from Empire and slavery, using that money to help kick start the industrial revolution (much more so than England where it's not so significant - this is very recent historical research by people like Tom Devine).

It's not uncommon to get the old victim narrative from the diaspora in Canada, Australia, USA etc, who often think their ancestors were forced out of Scotland by clearances, and in some cases they were, but the bulk of Scottish emigration was not the poorest but the middle classes and non-destitute looking for better opportunities in the empire. Scots were once so keen on being British that they practically invented the concept twice over (James VI's concept and the later 18th century idea that Scots were North Britons and the English, South Britons - which outraged people like John Wilkes!). This was because the empire and the industrial revolution worked so well. By the 19th century Scottish patriotism became identified with British patriotism - the old dual identity of the Unionist party (later the Conservatives).

This was also strongly embraced by the monarchy who embraced the dual identity, swathed themselves in tartan and even changed religion when the crossed the border - Queen Victoria even started taking communion at Crathie church, becoming communicant in both churches - CofS and CofE (others at the top of society did so too - she wasn't unique).

There was a huge crisis of national confidence after World War 1 where Scotland suffered disproportionate casualties, only to suffer a major and devastating slump after the war. What had it all been for? Could we no longer support ourselves? Then the post-war slump shaded into the Great Depression. The confident Dual Nationality took a huge knock, but was revitalised in a different form by World War 2.

As I've mentioned above, the British project was re-invigorated then by the sense of it being a shared assault on want and poverty (funny how certain people don't pejoratively label nationalism which wants to sort out poverty as 'messianic' when it's British!). The loss of empire was compensated for by a perception that Britain was a civilised, technologically-sophisticated, wealthy society which knew how to tackle its social and economic problems. Eradicating TB, building council houses, developing nuclear power stations... This idea of Britishness was torn apart though as some parts of Britain began to reject it and vote for people like Thatcher - low taxes, privatisation and devil take the hindmost.

Britishness is a form of nationalism too. Like Scottish nationalism it has moved from the old romantic ethnic concept of nationalism to striving for a civic concept of nationalism, making it accessible and applicable to people who come to Britain whatever their background or origin.

The weird thing is that people who like to attack Scottish nationalism are strangely blind to the fact that all the things they like to attack are part and parcel of the history of Britishness too. It too is a nationalism with a history once rooted in romantic ethnic nationalism (and the racial theory which used to go with this, defining the Irish as an inferior race, while including most of the Scots as part of Anglo saxon/Germanic race was very big in the late 19th/early 20th century)

Think it ain't so, that Britishness is just another nationalism? Well since borders and national pride and self-determination are such wicked wicked things, let's have a European super state. See how well that goes down with those who like most like to think of themselves as British! What horrid separatists!

I jest.

But there's a weird hypocrisy and blindness here. Some people seem to be implying that what their nations have is not nationalism. Apparently if you're not Scots, your nation has nice benign and fluffy harmless er... fuzzy warm feelings of love of country and its self-government is just normal and safe and natural- but somehow we have that shocking nasty dangerous risky 'N' word!

It's all getting a bit silly. If you're not a bona fide old style Marxist who believes all politics should be along class lines and none of that nasty old self-determination nation state stuff, then you're nationalists too. Just because you have a bigger nation, it doesn't make any difference.

As George Bernard Shaw allegedly put it - "We have established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price." Big nation nationalism is nationalism in principle, just the same as wee nation nationalism. Let me know when Canada, the US and UK are all going to give up their nationalism to sink their differences in a world government. Until then we've established what you are.


* Re 'Better Together', they employ journalists to write up negative stories about independence. These stories are then passed to over-worked skeleton-staffed newsrooms which have few journalists left. Those stories then tend to appear tweaked a bit in your newspaper/medium of choice, so you get a mix of the journalists who still do their own research and also stuff which is pretty obviously worked up from skewed PR releases. You really have to do your own research and work out who is doing their own homework and who is just recycling. If you're believing all the scare stories about currencies, pensions and the EU, these have been a focus for misinformation.

[ 02. December 2013, 01:19: 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.

Posted                      

quote:

---

But there's a weird hypocrisy and blindness here. Some people seem to be implying that what their nations have is not nationalism. Apparently if you're not Scots, your nation has nice benign and fluffy harmless er... fuzzy warm feelings of love of country and its self-government is just normal and safe and natural- but somehow we have that shocking nasty dangerous risky 'N' word!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
A paragraph of stuff I said previously.

---

I'm confused, why are we talking about civil wars? It seems to me that triviality is the hallmark of this potential divorce, not long simmering oppression or division.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't really know—my only feeling in the matter is that it doesn't make sense to gamble away a comfortable status quo on something so uncertain for something so silly like national pride.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
international law is very clear on this.

One part (Scotland) of a sovereign state (the UK) seceding does not do anything to the sovereign state's continued existence within smaller borders, nor to their membership of international organisations. This would be a very useful moderating influence on any excessive have-cake-and-eat-it demands of the Scottish government when negotiating the transfer of assets and liabilities, given that the UK would have the absolute right to veto any Scottish attempt to join the EU, NATO and even the United Nations.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would think Spain would be the bigger obstacle to Scottish entrance to the EU.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The real question, and one alluded to very briefly way upthread, is who comprises the "we" who have the right to determine their future. Is it limited to the Scots, or the entire UK? If the Scots, how is "Scotness" to be determined? Those on the roll for a Scots electorate? That would disenfranchise many who consider themselves Scots, but for the time being are living and working elsewhere in the UK.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
international law is very clear on this.

One part (Scotland) of a sovereign state (the UK) seceding does not do anything to the sovereign state's continued existence within smaller borders, nor to their membership of international organisations. This would be a very useful moderating influence on any excessive have-cake-and-eat-it demands of the Scottish government when negotiating the transfer of assets and liabilities, given that the UK would have the absolute right to veto any Scottish attempt to join the EU, NATO and even the United Nations.

---

Is it as simple as that? From the point of view of international law, you are no doubt right, but under various national laws, might it not be different? Surely it would mean that the Act of Union would have to be repealed, essentially dissolving the Union, the unitedness of the Kingdom, and with those the name. Additional laws would then have to be put in place to reinstate the name and the constitutional relationship of the three remaining parties. At this point "United Kingdom" would be calling the country something it is not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would think Spain would be the bigger obstacle to Scottish entrance to the EU.

---

Yes, they would no doubt huff and puff about it (unless Catalonia by this point is also seeking readmittance). However, they would have an helluva time explaining why a country which has essentially been part of the EU, fulfils all its standards and seamlessly seeks to continue both should be left outside. Of late, a whole series of rather more dubious candidatures have been granted membership. Essentially, the Spanish would have to admit to saying that they don't want to let Scotland in because they don't want the Catalonians to seek independence. That would just remind everyone of a playground tantrum. Accordingly, IMO, this Spanish thing is just more scaremongering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The real question, and one alluded to very briefly way upthread, is who comprises the "we" who have the right to determine their future. Is it limited to the Scots, or the entire UK? If the Scots, how is "Scotness" to be determined? Those on the roll for a Scots electorate? That would disenfranchise many who consider themselves Scots, but for the time being are living and working elsewhere in the UK.

---

The vote will be by those currently living in Scotland, or registered to vote in Scotland (e.g. students studying in England, but registered to vote at their parents' address.)

It would be impossible to include those who "consider themselves Scots" living elsewhere.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I would think Spain would be the bigger obstacle to Scottish entrance to the EU.

---

Yes, they would no doubt huff and puff about it (unless Catalonia by this point is also seeking readmittance). However, they would have an helluva time explaining why a country which has essentially been part of the EU, fulfils all its standards and seamlessly seeks to continue both should be left outside. Of late, a whole series of rather more dubious candidatures have been granted membership. Essentially, the Spanish would have to admit to saying that they don't want to let Scotland in because they don't want the Catalonians to seek independence. That would just remind everyone of a playground tantrum. Accordingly, IMO, this Spanish thing is just more scaremongering.

---

The Spanish wouldn't need to huff and puff, explain their motives or admit anything, they could just use their veto and the Scottish would have to bend over and take it.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Is it as simple as that? From the point of view of international law, you are no doubt right, but under various national laws, might it not be different? Surely it would mean that the Act of Union would have to be repealed, essentially dissolving the Union, the unitedness of the Kingdom, and with those the name. Additional laws would then have to be put in place to reinstate the name and the constitutional relationship of the three remaining parties. At this point "United Kingdom" would be calling the country something it is not.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
I don't know. I'm sure it's in the White Paper somewhere. I assume that someone like myself (Scottish parents / Scottish born / lived in Scotland all my life) would have a single Scottish passport.

My experience of being a Scot travelling abroad has been entirely positive, but I haven't been anywhere outwith Europe/ America / Canada.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
How would you decide who had the vote if it was extended to Scots living outwith Scotland? Besides, the people who will be affected by the vote are the people who live in Scotland, regardless of their place of birth.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

As an aside, a person here is an Aboriginal and entitled to vote in elections to such bodies as Local and Regional Aboriginal Land Councils if they identify as being aboriginal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

Given the small numbers, that is workable. There would be many more problems in using such a test to determine eligibility to vote as Scots.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

As I said above though, I think the SNP is disenfranchising Scottish people currently not residing in Scotland purely because those who appreciate free movement within the UK are likely to vote against secession.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
As I said above though, I think the SNP is disenfranchising Scottish people currently not residing in Scotland purely because those who appreciate free movement within the UK are likely to vote against secession.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, the White Paper appears to have considered that (presumably with someone more conversant with EU laws than me to check it out).

It describes the current situation as

quote:

---

this Government had little option but to allow Scottish institutions to set their own tuition fees for students from the rest of the UK at a rate no higher than the maximum annual tuition fee rate charged to such students by universities elsewhere in the UK.

... In 2012/13, the first year of the new arrangements, 4,800 students from the rest of the UK were accepted through UCAS to study at Scottish universities

---

I don't know what fee was actually charged for those students.

About post-independence, the White Paper says

quote:

---

Following independence, the Scottish Government proposes to maintain the status quo by continuing our current policy of charging fees to students from the rest of the UK to study at Scottish higher education institutions.

...

Our policy is based on the unique and exceptional position of Scotland in relation to other parts of the UK, on the relative size of the rest of the UK, on the fee differential, on our shared land border and common language, on the qualification structure, on the quality of our university sector and on the high demand for places. We believe that these distinctive characteristics will enable us to justify objectively the continuation of our current policy in a way which is consistent with the principles of free movement across the EU as a whole and which is compatible with EU requirements.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
Who would be allowed to apply for Scots nationality after independence? Would those born in Scotland but currently living in other countries be eligible to request it? Would people be able to hold joint Scots / British nationality?

---

quote:

---

The UK allows dual or multiple citizenship for British citizens. If a British citizen acquires citizenship and a passport of another country, this does not affect their British citizenship, right to hold a British passport or right to live in the UK. The Scottish Government will also allow dual citizenship. It will be for the rest of the UK to decide whether it allows dual UK/Scottish citizenship, but we expect the normal rules to extend to Scottish citizens.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem is, they're still thinking in terms of "the rest of the UK". What they seem to fail to grasp is that after independence that's no longer an applicable category - there will be "Scotland" and there will be "the UK". Separate countries, with all that implies. And one of the things it implies is that Scotland will no more be able to charge a different fee to UK students than it will to French or German students.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If the Italian government is able to organise fair elections for the representation of the Italian diaspora, it should be a piece of cake for the more competent administrators of Scotland.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Status quo? Comfortable status quo? If anyone thinks that non-independence will maintain a status quo, they are very much mistaken... Yes, they would no doubt huff and puff about it (unless Catalonia by this point is also seeking readmittance). However, they would have an helluva time explaining why a country which has essentially been part of the EU...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Those who vote Yes may be gambling on a future that doesn't turn out as rosy as they think. Those who vote No are also gambling, on the possibility that the bleak future of independence won't happen.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Every time you make a choice which means putting something on the table you might lose, you are risking your winnings. Indeed, you are gambling.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Those who vote Yes may be gambling on a future that doesn't turn out as rosy as they think. Those who vote No are also gambling, on the possibility that the bleak future of independence won't happen.

---

That's a gambler's fallacy if there ever was one—"Voting no is gambling away your winnings!"

Voting "no" is not gambling. It's not putting your chips on the table at all. Despite all the difficulties the pro-independence crowd has offered, they are pretty valuable chips.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

There is (at least) one big difference between voting and gambling. A gambler has a sure chance of coming out without losing anything, that is to not take part in the game.

Voting doesn't really give you that option - you've got a set number of choices (in this case, "Yes", "No" and "Abstain"), and you have to pick one of them. We're not given the option of not playing the game.

---