Thread: Purgatory: Scottish Independence Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001142

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
OK, I'm going to confess straight up that I have not read the White Paper recently released. I admit it, I've not had time to read 600+ pages of stuff. So, I'm going to post based on media statements of what it contains. Hopefully I'll get time to look at the primary document some time.

My initial reaction was disappointment that the document produced was a mix of two different things. We have description of what the Scottish Government wants an indpendent Scotland to be like - how we'd relate to the rest of the UK, EU, NATO etc, what Scottish citizenship would mean, and so on. That's the document I was waiting for, an answer to the "what does an 'Independent Scotland' mean?" question when faced with the ballot box next year.

The other part of the document appears to be an SNP manifesto for what they would do if elected to govern an independent Scotland. Which should, IMO, be something produced in the run-up to the first post-independence election rather than be in this white paper. Unless, of course, the policies they want to enact are contingent on independence ... "we want to do X, but can't because the necessary powers are retained in Westminster". Which, for most of what I've seen mentioned in the media doesn't appear to be the case (I may be wrong there, though).

So, my disappointment is really that I need to wade through stuff that's not about independence to see what independence will mean. And, only then can I think about which way to vote.

And, of course, whether independence will be as described in the relevant parts of the White Paper will still depend on other agencies - for example, will the EU accept Scotland as an independent state on the terms the SNP are proposing. We'll only really know that if there's a yes vote and Scotland actually enters into negotiations with other bodies.

[ 02. April 2014, 19:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
Is it too trivial to say that what independence means will be determined by the government of an independent Scotland, after independence has been gained? Perhaps that's more true on the day-to-day level than on the constitutional level, but I think it might be true nonetheless. In that sense, the SNP manifesto and the description of what independence is are very closely linked. When you vote in the referendum, it seems to me that practical reality dictates that you have to bear in mind the proclivities of the likely government just as much as anything else.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

If they want to walk out on the marriage why should they keep all the best stuff in the house?

[ 28. November 2013, 11:59: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :
 
I think we should all get a vote, not just those resident in Scotland. I do not understand why the future of the UK is not determined by the whole population.

I am rather fed up with all the complaining that we hear constantly from Mr Salmond, and I am afraid it is not endearing me to an otherwise very lovely country with lovely people.

Therefore, for the sake of that complaining, my vote would be for Scotland to be declared independent, and given Harry for their King, if they want him. And why not?
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Is it too trivial to say that what independence means will be determined by the government of an independent Scotland, after independence has been gained?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict:
I think we should all get a vote, not just those resident in Scotland. I do not understand why the future of the UK is not determined by the whole population.

---

Me too. I've long held the opinion that what is needed is a three fold process. An initial referendum in Scotland to determine if, in principle without any specific details, the people of Scotland would want independence. Followed, if the answer to that is 'yes', by detailed negotiations between Holyrood, Westminster, Brussels and other interested parties to define the terms of seperation between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and how Scotland then relates to the EU and other international bodies. This would then be followed by a UK wide referendum to ask whether the constitutional changes to the UK are agreeable to the population of the UK. Admittedly that creates an interesting problem if that last vote is overwhelmingly in favour in Scotland and against in the rest of the UK - though, not possibly as interesting as if Scotland votes no and everyone else votes yes.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
To start with, I don't think the Union is in good shape, or really ever has been. But I also don't think it's currently a case of England lording it over everybody else - I think it's London lording it over everybody else. All of the dissatisfaction expressed in Scotland about the Westminster government is present in the regions of England too, but it gets less coverage and has less political history tied up with it. But for me, the question is not so much about splitting the Union as it is about getting away from the mentality of "If it's good for London it's good for everyone; if it's a problem for London, it's a problem for everyone."

Having said that, I think what I've heard of the current proposals for Scotland's independence is a mess. One of the key problems, I think, is the currency. It would really make no sense for England to allow Scotland to keep the pound, because if the Scottish economy went down the tubes at some point, it would then drag the rest of the UK economy with it. Why would we want to allow that? So I think Scotland must either go for the euro, or have its own currency.
 

---

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
If the Scots are going to be independent then the West Lothian question will finally be answered.

And the rest of the UK will have another £4bn or so to either knock-off the deficit or spend on something we need - like schools, hospitals, etc.
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
What will it mean for the politics of the rest of the UK? The Tories aren't too popular up in Scotland right, so does that mean without Scotland the rest of us will be struck Blue indefinitely?
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
But that's the problem isn't it? In order to get the Scottish people to vote yes to independence Salmond is basically saying, 'nothing will change' You'll still have £ Sterling, you'll still have the Queen ...

He knows that if he said 'Scottish Republic, Euro, etc, just like the republic if Ireland, he'd get no support. He wants it both ways.

silly man.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I think we should invade and call everything north of the present border 'England'

Or else the English should declare independence first.
 

---

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
As far as keeping the Queen is concerned, when Elizabeth I died, ending the Tudor dynasty, the Scottish king James became king of both Scotland and England. From 1603 to 1707, one monarch reigned over both countries.

Independence would mean a return to the 1603 to 1707 position.

It's not as though the monarchy is entirely "English" given that the Queen traces her descent from the Scottish Stuart line.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One of the key problems, I think, is the currency. It would really make no sense for England to allow Scotland to keep the pound, because if the Scottish economy went down the tubes at some point, it would then drag the rest of the UK economy with it. Why would we want to allow that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
...the value of the pound is not going to be set by Scottish interests. It's going to be set by the Bank of England. There's no case in justice for giving an independent Scotland equal input into the decision process with England. So in practice, the Bank of England will consult the interests of the City of London, and maybe in good weather, the rest of the English economy. The Scottish economy will be more tied to the English economy than it is now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, by all means tell us what a Holyrood government could do under Independence that it can't do under Devolution, and if the people agree that having powers to change policy in that area is a good thing then that's a plus for the yes campaign. But, why tell us what they'll be able to do whether Scotland is independent or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think we should invade and call everything north of the present border 'England'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

---

They already do have their own currency and queen.

Why do you assume that those things belong more specially to England than to the other countries in the UK?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
and go the way of Zimbabwe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

---

They already do have their own currency and queen.

Why do you assume that those things belong more specially to England than to the other countries in the UK?

---

Because they want independence, not just devolution.
The Republic of Ireland no longer has the Queen or the Pound; neither does Zimbabwe.

If Scotland wants full independence let it cut all the stings like those 2 examples and have its own currency and its own form of republican government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Of all the proposals, I would have thought that the position of the monarchy was the least contentious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
What's interesting to me are the SNP's proposals re. the pound. Does Scotland intend to continue using pound sterling, in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro? Or do they believe that the Bank of England should actively consider Scottish matters in its deliberations?

---

quote:

---

James was King of Scotland only when Elizabeth was born.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
Dafyd:

quote:

---

James was King of Scotland only when Elizabeth was born.

---

Actually I think you'll find he was not even a twinkle in his father's eye when Elizabeth was born... but he certainly became King of England when she died, at which time he'd been King of Scots for several decades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
What's interesting to me are the SNP's proposals re. the pound. Does Scotland intend to continue using pound sterling, in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro? Or do they believe that the Bank of England should actively consider Scottish matters in its deliberations?

---

Absolutely, and I mentioned this upthread. The SNP position seems totally incoherent to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
As is usual in these threads, I can't really understand giving up a comfortable status quo for an uncertain future over silly issues like "national pride." I know it's not my country and all, but I just can't fathom why Scottish independence would be worth the bother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

What's interesting to me are the SNP's proposals re. the pound. Does Scotland intend to continue using pound sterling, in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro? Or do they believe that the Bank of England should actively consider Scottish matters in its deliberations?

---

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.

---

England and Wales, hey? What about Northern Ireland?

I think Scottish independence might destabilize N.Ireland badly. Unionists feel much more kinship with the Scots than they do with the English. I think they'd feel "out on a limb" both geographically and culturally. Dangerous, ISTM.

More mischievously, might the English take the opportunity to argue that Northern Ireland should really count as part of Scotland?
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

What's interesting to me are the SNP's proposals re. the pound. Does Scotland intend to continue using pound sterling, in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar or Montenegro uses the Euro? Or do they believe that the Bank of England should actively consider Scottish matters in its deliberations?

---

Does it follow that the Bank of England wouldn't? If Scotland retained the pound, a decision by the Bank that buggered up the Scottish economy would also bugger up the pound itself, and thus the English economy too, surely?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
At present, the Bank of England has to consider the whole of the UK. If Scotland was to separate, the Bank of England's responsibility would presumably cover only the rUK (to use the abbreviation that's doing the rounds). Of course the affect of any decision that affects Scotland badly and which in turn has a knock-on effect on the rUK would no doubt weigh on the Bank's mind, but they'd presumably be very much an afterthought?

I haven't looked at this closely, but it seems to me that Salmond and co might be arguing that the Bank of England should continue effectively as before, with equal responsibility for the rUK and for Scotland. If this is correct, the SNP aren't really calling for independence at all, so far as I can see.

---

quote:

---

Not Elizabeth Tudor - Elizabeth Stuart. Elizabeth Stuart was James VI's daughter.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The Highland clearances were over 200 years ago. Just saying.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The Highland clearances were over 200 years ago. Just saying.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I would say is 'Get your own currency and get your own Queen!'

---

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"?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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".

---

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 .
 

---

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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 .
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

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? ?

---

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.

---

Although I thought it was obvious ;-)

Gunfighting
 

---

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 

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.

---

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?

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.

---

quote:

---

In the very least, I don't expect that it would resolve 250 year old injustices

---

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.

---

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?"

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Scotland is a full member of the Westminster parliament.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Scotland is a full member of the Westminster parliament.

---

And a fully outnumbered one.

---

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...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

The Scotland being here described – or proposed – was the Britain so passionately hoped for by the millions who voted for Tony Blair, back in 1997.

After 18 years of Thatcherism, the longing was for a return to fairness and a stronger regulating and redistributing role for the state. What New Labour did with those hopes is another story. But Salmond's "what sort of Scotland" is also a moderate, statist social democracy...

The yes camp is wider than the official yes campaign. Around Scotland in recent months, I keep meeting people who would never vote SNP or trust Salmond, but who are painfully admitting that they may have to vote yes. This is because they are appalled at the way the British state is heading under Tory or Labour: the downward plunge into the barbarism of neoliberal politics, the contempt for public service, the almost monthly advance of privatisation.

---

quote:

---

posted by orfeo
Even if it's a slight over-representation per head of population, on the floor of the House of Commons it's 533 English reps out of a total of 650.

---

• England : 83.9% - 578 (533)
• Scotland : 8.4% - 54 (59)
• Wales : 4.8 - 31 (40)
• Northern Ireland : 2.9% - 18 (19)

• represented as Scotland = 1165 English MPs
• represented as Wales = 799 English MPs
• represented as Northern Ireland = 3198 English MPs

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
Does it really matter if Scotland is over-represented?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
Does it really matter if Scotland is over-represented?

---

In a discussion about the position of Scotland within the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom, possibly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
Get a life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
Get a life.

---

hosting/
This thread has been doing amazingly well at staying out of the danger zone and is much the better for it. Don't compromise that by heading down the road of personal insults.
/hosting

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

People never stopped believing in Canada. Sadly, people seem to have stopped believing in the United Kingdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
Not an insult, a statement of fact.

---

Hosting/
"Get a life" is not a statement of fact. It is an insult directed at another poster. If you want to dispute that, take it up in the Styx. If you carry on ignoring or contesting hostly interventions on this thread, expect attention from an admin.
/Hosting

[ 29. November 2013, 18:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I really don't see what's wrong with the current system.

England doesn't need its own parliament. All that is needed is a convention that Scottish MPs at Westminster don't vote on matters peculiar to England, and I understand such a convention already exists.

Scottish worries about being dominated by England can be dealt with by delegation of legal powers to its own Parliament. Oh look, that's been done too. What I don't understand is how many more special arrangements need to be made to mitigate that.

What I don't see the point of is the creation of a huge constitutional edifice that will achieve little apart from slowing the legislative process, creating uncertainty in the law, and hence plenty of work for lawyers.

Actually, perhaps it's not such a bad idea after all.
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
I really don't see what's wrong with the current system.

England doesn't need its own parliament. All that is needed is a convention that Scottish MPs at Westminster don't vote on matters peculiar to England, and I understand such a convention already exists.

---

quote:

---

Scottish worries about being dominated by England can be dealt with by delegation of legal powers to its own Parliament. Oh look, that's been done too.

---

quote:

---

Wulfstan:
As for the SNP, they have had devolved government for some time now, a more generous allocation of funds per head than the rest of the UK courtesy of the Barnet formula and the right to increase income tax (by 3% IIRC). Have they done much with this? When INEOS was threatening to close Grangemouth, did they suggest nationalising it? Have you any evidence to support the idea that Salmond would seriously tackle any of the problems you raise? How would austerity end if Scotland is keeping the pound and therefore having the BofE as its lender of last resort? It would be restricted by any borrowing limits the BofE chose to impose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Generally,I think independence would get us away from the privately educated Westminster elite, which is likely to be good news for the poor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Generally,I think independence would get us away from the privately educated Westminster elite, which is likely to be good news for the poor.

---

But less good for anyone who isn't poor? How many of the better-off Scots will relocate south if the border?

---

quote:

---

You wouldn’t have had Labour governments in 1964

---

quote:

---

or after either of the elections in the 1970s,

---

quote:

---

John Major would have had a solid majority in 1992

---

quote:

---

Most importantly the 2010 election would have been an outright win for the Tories, which due to the treachery of the Lib Dems might not have affected policy much but would have improved Tory morale no end.

---

quote:

---

As for the SNP...Have they done much with this?

---

quote:

---

Do you really think it is actually possible for the current situation to go on indefinitely? Ever increasing personal debt, ever higher house and energy prices, food poverty on an unprecedented post-war scale? Only an ardent Tory could believe that. We’re heading for another economic crash if we carry on like this, the question is what happens then. At the moment the Tories are deeply divided, facing real problems from UKIP, their key policies are failing and they haven’t won an election outright in over 20 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Generally,I think independence would get us away from the privately educated Westminster elite, which is likely to be good news for the poor.

---

But less good for anyone who isn't poor? How many of the better-off Scots will relocate south if the border?

---

Very few? How many individuals beyond the super rich migrate solely for tax purposes?

---

quote:

---

Cod:
I hope, however, no one thinks Scotland is entitled to greater public spending because it is a net contributor to UK coffers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Full of Chips:
These are all policies highly unpopular in Scotland, decided upon by a Government which has little Scottish support. What I think Scotland (indeed any body politic) is entitled to is to have its resources spent in ways that are democratically representative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Full of Chips:
These are all policies highly unpopular in Scotland, decided upon by a Government which has little Scottish support. What I think Scotland (indeed any body politic) is entitled to is to have its resources spent in ways that are democratically representative.

---

Ok. If the Scots vote for independence and the English naysayers are right, and Scotland soon runs out of money funding a bloated welfare state on the never-never, do you think that English taxpayers would be within their rights to refuse any subsequent bail out of the Scottish economy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Full of Chips:
This is used, amongst other things, to invade foreign countries illegally, maintain a nuclear arsenal and to build a high speed rail link that will never go anywhere near Scotland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Full of Chips:
These are all policies highly unpopular in Scotland, decided upon by a Government which has little Scottish support. What I think Scotland (indeed any body politic) is entitled to is to have its resources spent in ways that are democratically representative.

---

Ok. If the Scots vote for independence and the English naysayers are right, and Scotland soon runs out of money funding a bloated welfare state on the never-never, do you think that English taxpayers would be within their rights to refuse any subsequent bail out of the Scottish economy?

---

quote:

---

I thought HS2 is going halfway to Scotland, will be a perfect launching point for a future extension to go further north and will see improvements in cross-border travel even without a future extension?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Full of Chips:

quote:

---

I thought HS2 is going halfway to Scotland, will be a perfect launching point for a future extension to go further north and will see improvements in cross-border travel even without a future extension?

---

It's not particularly convincing all spelled out like that is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
How much does the current crown family provide to Scotland in terms of GDP?

---

quote:

---

How much of the upkeep of said family would the Scottish government be expected to pay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Scottish worries about being dominated by England can be dealt with by delegation of legal powers to its own Parliament. Oh look, that's been done too.

---

No, that hasn't been done too. Too much was reserved to Westminster, including vital areas like welfare policy, immigration, and fiscal autonomy, when asked to tackle that by devo max (delegating everything except defence and foreign policy) the Westminster government refused to even allow the question to be put on the referendum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:

---

posted by orfeo
Even if it's a slight over-representation per head of population, on the floor of the House of Commons it's 533 English reps out of a total of 650.

---

In the case of Scotland it is indeed a slight over-representation in the House of Commons - of the other parts that make up the UK the most over-represented is Wales.

If you look at the percentage of population and then work out the number of MPs to go with that then the representation of the various parts of the UK should be as follows (actual number of seats in brackets):

• England : 83.9% - 578 (533)
• Scotland : 8.4% - 54 (59)
• Wales : 4.8 - 31 (40)
• Northern Ireland : 2.9% - 18 (19)

But that is to ignore the fact the the Scottish Parliament deals with approximately half the law-making / decision taking for Scotland - and the Scottish Parliament has a further 129 MSPs, 73 for set constituencies and 56 as "regional" MSPs.

For Wales, where the Assembly has fewer powers the numbers are 40:20. In Northern Ireland, again with fewer devolved powers, they elect 6 assembly members per constituency, giving them 108 MLAs in all.

There are those who say that the greater number of representatives at devolved level in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is to make up for the greater number of English members at Westminster.

But if you use the numbers of devolved members per Westminster constituency as your benchmark the figures look hugely different.

If English constituencies were represented at the same level as those of the other 3 parts of the UK then the numbers would be:

• represented as Scotland = 1165 English MPs
• represented as Wales = 799 English MPs
• represented as Northern Ireland = 3198 English MPs

Whatever the outcome of the vote in Scotland, it is beyond time for sorting out three issues: the number of MPs overall; the percentage of population represented by each MP; the Westminster representation of the areas with devolved assemblies.

---

quote:

---

The last three Labour governments in particular have all enjoyed comfortable overall majorities, which the loss of Scottish seats would not have overturned. In 1997 Labour’s majority was 178, of which only 56 were Scottish seats; in 2001 their majority was 166, of which 55 seats were Scottish; and in 2005 Labour’s majority was 65, of which 40 were Scottish seats.[6]

Nor does Labour’s recent electoral record in England suggest that the Tories would possess an innate advantage there. In 1997, for example, Labour obtained a majority in England alone of 127; in 2001 they had a majority there of 117; and in 2005 they secured a majority of 43.

---

quote:

---

Admittedly, where a Labour government may have greater difficulty as a result of Scottish independence might be in getting contentious bills passed in Parliament. On two occasions in recent memory a Labour government has had to rely on its Scottish support to help pass bills in the face of a rebellion from its own English backbenchers.

When the Government’s Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill 2003-2004, was returned with amendments from the Lords...The Government would have lost by 4 votes if only the English and Welsh MPs had voted on this bill. Similarly in 2004 the Government’s Higher Education Bill, which implemented ‘top-up fees’, passed at its second reading by 316 votes to 311. If only English and Welsh MPs had voted on this bill it too would have failed

---

quote:

---

"There are two occasions on which this influence has been clear. Without Scottish MPs, the 2003 introduction of Foundation Hospitals, and the 2004 introduction of £3,000 top-up fees, would not have passed. Neither of these policies impacted significantly on the Scottish constituents of the MPs who forced them through: both health and education are devolved to Holyrood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Two questions related to keeping the monarchy of Scotland:

How much does the current crown family provide to Scotland in terms of GDP?

How much of the upkeep of said family would the Scottish government be expected to pay?

---

quote:

---

Louise: We're not a small impoverished country in the South of Europe with no control of our currency. We're a northern country with a long history of industrial development, education, technology and good natural resources.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
We're not a small impoverished country in the South of Europe with no control of our currency. We're a northern country with a long history of industrial development, education, technology and good natural resources. If sharing Sterling was a problem we could make other choices. As pointed out above, our contribution to Sterling is a useful one which contributes to the stability of the currency. We have a chance to have something much better and also to protect ourselves from the worst excesses of a broken and antiquated parliamentary system which I've sketched earlier in the thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Full of Chips:
These are all policies highly unpopular in Scotland, decided upon by a Government which has little Scottish support. What I think Scotland (indeed any body politic) is entitled to is to have its resources spent in ways that are democratically representative.

---

Ok. If the Scots vote for independence and the English naysayers are right, and Scotland soon runs out of money funding a bloated welfare state on the never-never, do you think that English taxpayers would be within their rights to refuse any subsequent bail out of the Scottish economy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I do appreciate the resentment of Tory-led government from London, but that won't be the state of affairs for ever (it might well only be the state of affairs for another 18 months!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But ISTM the questions around currency and financial independence have not remotely been answered. I expect there'd be no problem with independent Scotland using the pound, but the point is that Scotland would have very little to no control over that currency. If, at some point in the future, Scotland wanted to devalue its currency (or rUK wanted to do so, and Scotland didn't), well this wouldn't be an option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't the Scottish Labour Party one of the murkiest, most corrupt political organisations in the UK today? I'm surprised that anyone would want independence so that it can be more true to itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't the Scottish Labour Party one of the murkiest, most corrupt political organisations in the UK today? I'm surprised that anyone would want independence so that it can be more true to itself.

---

Compared with the English conservative party they're a beacon of probity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
That's a really bizarre measure of corruption you have there. I'm not even sure to whom you are referring, is this about Gordon McMaster? A case from over 15 years ago the perpetrator of which was suspended from the party?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
How much does the current crown family provide to Scotland in terms of GDP?

---

Wouldn't that be able to be roughly approximated by working out the current benefit to the whole of the UK (primarily the tourism income flowing into the economy) and multiplying that by the percentage of general revenue which flows specifically to Scotland?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I do appreciate the resentment of Tory-led government from London, but that won't be the state of affairs for ever (it might well only be the state of affairs for another 18 months!)

---

But, it's not a question of the party in power at anyone time. It's the fact that over the last 30 years all three main UK wide parties have shifted to the right politically. Blue, yellow or red ... they're all shades of Tory. A further general election which results in a New Labour majority won't significantly change that.

Independence will allow Scottish Labour to swing back to the left, which is where the majority of Scottish Labour voters are. Which shold allow an effective opposition to the SNP, who while Labour are centre-right Tories with a red rosette, have larger electoral support than might otherwise be the case (also helped by the perceived betrayal by Clegg).

The only problem is that without Scottish Labour to anchor them to the left, New Labour in rUK are liable to slide further right. And, there are lots of regions of England and Wales outwith the SE corner where that would be as unpalatable to large proportions of the electorate as it is in Scotland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
It was one particular example that came to mind when you began to draw comparisons with other parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

How much of the upkeep of said family would the Scottish government be expected to pay?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
Are my neighbours in England so different from the people of [choose your own FYR]?

(To the last I would have said, of course they are; until I read early posts on this thread.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
When Yugoslavia was breaking up, and ethnic cleansing was the flavour of the month I used to wonder whether in my old age I would find myself pushing my belongings in a pram up the A1.

Ought I be packing my bags now? If not, why not?
Are my neighbours in England so different from the people of [choose your own FYR]?

(To the last I would have said, of course they are; until I read early posts on this thread.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
When Yugoslavia was breaking up, and ethnic cleansing was the flavour of the month I used to wonder whether in my old age I would find myself pushing my belongings in a pram up the A1.

Ought I be packing my bags now? If not, why not?
Are my neighbours in England so different from the people of [choose your own FYR]?

(To the last I would have said, of course they are; until I read early posts on this thread.)

---

People are planning referendums and publishing White Papers, and you're trying to equate that to a country that had a civil war?


 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
If Scotland separates, how will that affect the future's view of United Kingdom history, like WWII? It's a bit hard for a country to have one of its finest hours and then disappear seventy years later.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:


We're not a colony to be told that having the ordinary powers of a country is a 'privilege' for us to be grateful to someone else for. Nor does a proposed currency union which suits both sides represent one country 'having its cake and eating it'.

Also we're not Quebec. The Scottish White Paper has been published. If people want to prove that Scottish independence is X, Y or Z thing they hate about Quebec nationalism, then please quote the relevant bit from the Scottish white paper and demonstrate it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
If Scotland separates, how will that affect the future's view of United Kingdom history, like WWII? It's a bit hard for a country to have one of its finest hours and then disappear seventy years later.

---

Oh that is utter rubbish. Countries in Europe have been dividing and combining for centuries. Do you seriously think there is any point in time where people said 'wait, we can't do that, our grandfathers and great-grand fathers did quite well as soldiers under the regime that happened to exist at the time'?

If you want to know how countries view themselves as their makeup changes over time, go and do a fact-finding mission in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovnia, and the FYROM for starters off the top of my head. Oh wait, let's throw in all the former bits and pieces of the Soviet Union, there's another 15 or so for you. Do you think that everyone just went 'but wait, we won't know our history if we alter the borders'?

According to this count, 34 new countries have been created since 1990. 34! My grandmother was born in 1921, so she's probably seen about 100 countries turn up on the map. Admittedly she just missed the creation of Finland. Yes, that horrible new-fangled country. If you're going to treat changes in governing arrangements as some kind of inconceivable disastrous event, you're going to have to ignore the fact that it happens on a ridiculously frequent basis.

I just cannot believe the sheer preciousness of people painting all these 'problems' of independence. There are legitimate issues to tackle, but 'what will we put in the history books about the 1940s' is assuredly not one of them.

[ 01. December 2013, 02:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 


Read for context, orfeo. Commenters upthread said that although each component of the UK has its own history, they have a combined history too, and that is one of the finer moments of that combined history. Surely you as an Australian understand that national history is part of the national dream, just as I as a Canadian understand it. People believed in the UK then, yet they don't appear to believe in the UK now. Why?

The Scots "Yes" side will win if 60,000 English are not prepared to travel north of the Tweed and hold a giant rally for the continued existence of the UK in Edinburgh.

That's what happened in Canada in 1995. As a Radio-Canada documentary ably stated (in French) the other provinces had been shut out of the process and told to mind their own business. By the end of the campaign they were pulling out hair out and watching the Yes side win. So 60K Canadians did get into a car, a train, a plane and held a Unity Rally in Montreal.

If nobody in England is prepared to do that, then the UK is already lost. It's a fundamental expression that deep down you still care about each other and want to be together.
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
If Scotland separates, how will that affect the future's view of United Kingdom history, like WWII? It's a bit hard for a country to have one of its finest hours and then disappear seventy years later.

---

Wow. That was almost UKIP like, in a passive way.

From an NDPer?

Really? You really think that's an issue for Scottish Independence voters to consider? How past history will be seen?

And, just as weirdly, since when does the history of people disappear when part of those people, 70 years later, decide to move off and go their own way?

Your detest for Quebec separatism is colouring your views here to the point where you are talking utter tosh.

From what I've read here, this is not the same scenario as Quebec.

The history is not the same.

The people are not the same.

The situations are not the same.

And, people on the ground in Scotland, on both sides of this debate, have rejected Quebec as an example.

For me, the principle of self-determination precludes me from discussing Scottish independence with anything more then academic interest. Sure, I'll ask a question or two, and maybe comment upon a scenario.

But, that question you gave out is pretty loaded.

As I said, that's UKIP speak. Are you sure you want to go down the route of patriotism?
 

---

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:


...

The Scots "Yes" side will win if 60,000 English are not prepared to travel north of the Tweed and hold a giant rally for the continued existence of the UK in Edinburgh.

That's what happened in Canada in 1995. As a Radio-Canada documentary ably stated (in French) the other provinces had been shut out of the process and told to mind their own business. By the end of the campaign they were pulling out hair out and watching the Yes side win. So 60K Canadians did get into a car, a train, a plane and held a Unity Rally in Montreal.

If nobody in England is prepared to do that, then the UK is already lost. It's a fundamental expression that deep down you still care about each other and want to be together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Surely you as an Australian understand that national history is part of the national dream, just as I as a Canadian understand it.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
When Yugoslavia was breaking up, and ethnic cleansing was the flavour of the month I used to wonder whether in my old age I would find myself pushing my belongings in a pram up the A1.

Ought I be packing my bags now? If not, why not?
Are my neighbours in England so different from the people of [choose your own FYR]?

(To the last I would have said, of course they are; until I read early posts on this thread.)

---

People are planning referendums and publishing White Papers, and you're trying to equate that to a country that had a civil war?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
In a way, a fair question. Are the inter-regional, inter-state or other tensions within a nation state enough that, given the right flashpoint, they could lead to civil war? Fragmented nations are the stuff of apocalyptic dramas, but would it take something less to set us (whoever "us" might refer to) at one another's throats? When you see other nations breaking apart, you do wonder. After all, Yugoslavia/Sudan/Syria/wherever has been on our maps for years; were the simmering tensions that we never heard about really that much worse than those here? Could it happen here?

FWIW, my answer is no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Greece and Southern Europe shows exactly what happens when a country does not have control of its currency. Europe has widely varying economic policies and outcomes and has tried to fit a single currency on this. It failed because you can't have an independent fiscal policy under a currency union.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
In a way, a fair question. Are the inter-regional, inter-state or other tensions within a nation state enough that, given the right flashpoint, they could lead to civil war? Fragmented nations are the stuff of apocalyptic dramas, but would it take something less to set us (whoever "us" might refer to) at one another's throats? When you see other nations breaking apart, you do wonder. After all, Yugoslavia/Sudan/Syria/wherever has been on our maps for years; were the simmering tensions that we never heard about really that much worse than those here? Could it happen here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
If Scotland separates, how will that affect the future's view of United Kingdom history, like WWII? It's a bit hard for a country to have one of its finest hours and then disappear seventy years later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Scotland also has no control of customs and immigration policy. Take tourism, which has a larger footprint on the Scottish economy than that of England. The increasing number of Chinese and Indian tourists to Europe often acquire a Schengen visa, but not a second visa for Britain. This is one area where it might be interesting for Scotland join the Schengen zone at some point, which certainly isn't going to happen in UK context as long as England has other concerns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If immigration policy in post-secession Scotland is going to diverge from that of the UK,

---

quote:

---

controls at the UK-Scotland border would come in before too long.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
1995 is not today.
England is not the ROC circa 1995, nor the ROC as it is today. Scotland is not Quebec circa 1995, nor the ROC as it is today.

You might have heroic memories of what happened then. But that was 18 years ago, in another country, on another continent, involving much different issue. The Europe of today, of which Scotland and England and the rest of the UK are a part, is very very different from Canada circa 1995.

The world has changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Can I come?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
If Scotland separates, how will that affect the future's view of United Kingdom history, like WWII? It's a bit hard for a country to have one of its finest hours and then disappear seventy years later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vulpior:
In a way, a fair question. Are the inter-regional, inter-state or other tensions within a nation state enough that, given the right flashpoint, they could lead to civil war? Fragmented nations are the stuff of apocalyptic dramas, but would it take something less to set us (whoever "us" might refer to) at one another's throats? When you see other nations breaking apart, you do wonder. After all, Yugoslavia/Sudan/Syria/wherever has been on our maps for years; were the simmering tensions that we never heard about really that much worse than those here? Could it happen here?

---

For all its failings, the Westminster government was at least enlightened enough to let the residents of Scotland vote on the matter (although refusing a Devo-Max option due to their own political calculations). This alone largely diffuses the situation compared with all the other examples you quote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
Those who disparage the comparison with the dissolution of Yugoslavia seem to forget that there are parts of the UK where there is still a civil war simmering away,

---

quote:

---

and that when it was last really on the boil persons from that part of the UK were subject to well, a certain degree of hostility in England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
The emphasis by Mr Salmond et al on "the people of Scotland" and not "the Scots" encouraged me to hope that this was not tribal or ethnic, but about those who live and work in Scotland. But it's depressing how soon it morphs into "the Scots".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, suggestions of extending the franchise to Scots living outwith Scotland has been repeatedly rejected by the Scottish Government (with the exception of those registered to vote in Scotland, but serving overseas in the armed forces or government service).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
The emphasis by Mr Salmond et al on "the people of Scotland" and not "the Scots" encouraged me to hope that this was not tribal or ethnic, but about those who live and work in Scotland. But it's depressing how soon it morphs into "the Scots".

---

Though, suggestions of extending the franchise to Scots living outwith Scotland has been repeatedly rejected by the Scottish Government (with the exception of those registered to vote in Scotland, but serving overseas in the armed forces or government service). The Scottish Government, and the yes campaign generally, have been resolute that the question is one for the people living in Scotland rather than being an ethnic one. It's usually the media reporting or others that morph "the people living in Scotland" to "the Scots".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It's a fundamental expression that deep down you still care about each other and want to be together.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Ori]ginally posted by Anglican't:
Are there any instances where Englishmen shot, raped or destroyed the property of fellow British subjects on account of them being from Ulster?

---

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.

On current rates, that works out to somewhere in the region of £7,000 lost per rUK student at a Scottish university. And it's reasonable to assume that a great many rUK students would choose to study in Scotland if the fees remain so much lower than those in the rUK - and Scotland would not be able to stop them.

The Scottish government would be stuck either subsidising a great deal of education for rUK students, banning rUK students from studying in Scotland, or increasing the fees for all Home/EU students to the point where there's no longer the massive incentive for rUK students to go north of the border. The first option would be financially troublesome (and might even require higher taxes from Scottish people purely to pay for educating rUK students), the second would be against EU law, and the third would be electoral suicide. Good luck with that...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:


Are there any instances where Englishmen shot, raped or destroyed the property of fellow British subjects on account of them being from Ulster?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Ori]ginally posted by Anglican't:
Are there any instances where Englishmen shot, raped or destroyed the property of fellow British subjects on account of them being from Ulster?

---

Not sure...Derry, definitely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
But on a lighter note: any bets on how long before someone pricks Mr Cameron's fantasy that somehow the "United Kingdom" would survive as a credible title for England and the annexed Welsh principality with the Scottish colony in Ulster?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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)?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

something so uncertain for something so silly like national pride.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

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

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I don't give a handful of crap about Britishness, Louise, and I don't care about "Americanness" either. I care about democratic participation in my government and my ability to make a living.

This turn of your post is particularly offensive and pointless,

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!

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
The UK isn't remaining static, though. There appears to be a general movement to the right. It's not clear whether UKIP might become a serious political party. The Labour party in England is to the right of the Labour party in Scotland, so a Labour-voting Scot will never get the party s/he wants, even if Labour are in a majority in Westminster.

Voting no is to gamble that Westminster won't move further to the right, that the proposed 2017 referendum won't take the UK out of the EU etc etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Then go on putting your pounds on the roulette table, and I'll keep mine.

---

quote:

---

Try it. You might find that someone has swiped them out of your back pocket.

---

Ah, we're back to "those thieving English devils" again. And you wonder why I doubt this divorce will necessarily be amicable.

[ 02. December 2013, 15:30: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
Actually no, we're back to Bible basics. Read Matthew 25:14-30 to find out what happens to people who hoard their cash.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Actually no, we're back to Bible basics. Read Matthew 25:14-30 to find out what happens to people who hoard their cash.

---

Now you think the bible recommends independence?
 

---

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
Maybe you should take more than 5 minutes to read the text thoughtfully and work out what it is saying.

Depending on your translation, the servant's master doesn't necessarily come out with a thick posh English accent.

[ 02. December 2013, 16:06: Message edited by: Molopata The Rebel ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Not at all—thank you for this new insight into the thinking behind a pro-independence vote.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Aren't many Scots tired of being ruled by right-wing politicians, e.g. Blair, Cameron?

I think it can be rebutted by pointing out that there may well be a right-wing shift in Scotland, once the honeymoon is over, as it will be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Aren't many Scots tired of being ruled by right-wing politicians, e.g. Blair, Cameron?

I think it can be rebutted by pointing out that there may well be a right-wing shift in Scotland, once the honeymoon is over, as it will be.

---

Well, if that happens then it will be a right-wing shift chosen by the voters in Scotland, rather than one chosen by voters in London and the Home Counties.

---

quote:

---

I think it can be rebutted by pointing out that there may well be a right-wing shift in Scotland, once the honeymoon is over, as it will be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Scotland already has full democratic representation in its government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Scotland already has full democratic representation in its government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Aren't many Scots tired of being ruled by right-wing politicians, e.g. Blair, Cameron?

I think it can be rebutted by pointing out that there may well be a right-wing shift in Scotland, once the honeymoon is over, as it will be.

---

Well, if that happens then it will be a right-wing shift chosen by the voters in Scotland, rather than one chosen by voters in London and the Home Counties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We have our own crowd of people in the United States who cry disenfranchisement every time they don't get the president they want. "That's not MY president!" Fortunately we don't generally take such voices seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
But in an independent Scotland, the people who live in Scotland wouldn't be "minority voices"

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: That sounds to me like an argument for splitting up the USA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We have our own crowd of people in the United States who cry disenfranchisement every time they don't get the president they want. "That's not MY president!" Fortunately we don't generally take such voices seriously.

---

That sounds to me like an argument for splitting up the USA. If the Red States consistently vote for one form of government and the Blue States consistently vote for another, then under the current system they each only get the government they want about half the time and spend the other half unhappy. If instead they were two separate countries they could both have the government they want, and everyone would be happy all the time!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My little joke about Ireland above, has reminded me of another argument about Scottish independence, which I heard recently. If Ireland can do it, why not Scotland?

Of course, Ireland and Scotland are very different; none the less, some of the arguments might be the same.

I think there were many arguments against Irish independence, for example, that it was a very small and agrarian country, and possibly some of those arguments on the economic side, were cogent. But against that, Irish nationalism was irresistible.

I don't think Scottish nationalism is as irresistible, but I think its time has come, or it will come ere long. And if not now, when?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That sounds to me like an argument for splitting up the USA. If the Red States consistently vote for one form of government and the Blue States consistently vote for another, then under the current system they each only get the government they want about half the time and spend the other half unhappy. If instead they were two separate countries they could both have the government they want, and everyone would be happy all the time!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
No, I think it's more like, Scotland wants to be independent. Well, maybe it doesn't.

In the case of Ireland, there was quite a lot of ambivalence I think - they say that the 1916 rebels were initially booed in the streets, but opinion changed of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
No, I think it's more like, Scotland wants to be independent. Well, maybe it doesn't.

In the case of Ireland, there was quite a lot of ambivalence I think - they say that the 1916 rebels were initially booed in the streets, but opinion changed of course.

---

I really can't reconcile this with what you said or current events. We don't know that Scotland wants independence because they haven't voted yet. Where are you getting this sense of inevitability you express in your previous post?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We're talking about Scotland.

---

Yes, and I drew an analogy with Ireland, where nationalism was perhaps lukewarm to begin with, but then was considerably heated up by English idiocy and brutality.

Of course, it's quite different in Scotland, and Cameron is probably not going to send the Black and Tans; then again, perhaps some Scots want to be separate from the big bug down south.
 

---

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
Hey, what if we just make a one big single world government under the UN? Then nobody gets to be independent. No risk and no fun. That would be fair. What do you say, Zack, eh?
 

---

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
In the Irish situation, the public were pretty ambivalent to the situation up until the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising were shot at Kilmainham Goal .

So Alex Salmond knows what he needs to do to really get public opinion behind him
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
In the Irish situation, the public were pretty ambivalent to the situation up until the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rising were shot at Kilmainham Goal .

So Alex Salmond knows what he needs to do to really get public opinion behind him

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Hey, what if we just make a one big single world government under the UN? Then nobody gets to be independent. No risk and no fun. That would be fair. What do you say, Zack, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I have argued that a basically acceptable status quo is preferable to big changes with dubious returns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I have argued that a basically acceptable status quo is preferable to big changes with dubious returns.

---

Well, if that attitude ran deep, humanity would still not have come down from the trees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, an acceptable status quo tends to remain the status quo. But perhaps in Scotland more and more people are dissatisfied with it - see the SNP majority in the last election, and the virtual disappearance of the Tories in terms of MPs, and considerable dissatisfaction with Labour. Something is afoot.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: I believe democracy is the best form of government, but that doesn't mean I think democracies always act wisely or with reasonable motivations. The majority of Scots might very well think that independence will get them what they want, but I just don't see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Zach82: I believe democracy is the best form of government, but that doesn't mean I think democracies always act wisely or with reasonable motivations. The majority of Scots might very well think that independence will get them what they want, but I just don't see it.

---

But doesn't democratical decision sometimes also mean willingness to take the risk and face the consequences together?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry, 'virtual disappearance of Tories' is incorrect. 15 MPs, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry, 'virtual disappearance of Tories' is incorrect. 15 MPs, I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If you think independence is the next grand step of humankind, mandated by the Holy Scriptures, then go for it. Though such thinking only confirms in my mind that pro-independence expectations are more messianic that realistic.

---

And your mind appears from what you state to work in weird and wonderful ways! The scriptural quote was in support of the argument that risks must be taken in life and to avoid them is to loose what you have. To somehow establish a singularity between that argument and the case Scottish independence, let alone a postulation of divine providence, suggests that you have become quite carried away.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
If you think independence is the next grand step of humankind, mandated by the Holy Scriptures, then go for it. Though such thinking only confirms in my mind that pro-independence expectations are more messianic that realistic.

---

And your mind appears from what you state to work in weird and wonderful ways! The scriptural quote was in support of the argument that risks must be taken in life and to avoid them is to loose what you have. To somehow establish a singularity between that argument and the case Scottish independence, let alone a postulation of divine providence, suggests that you have become quite carried away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

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.

---

Untrue. Because the Italian diaspora are identified via Italian citizenship. There is no such thing as 'Scottish citizenship' currently by which to perform an equivalent action.

---

quote:

---

If you must get personal, take it to Hell
If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.

---

There is plenty to discuss here without falling foul of this or any other board guideline or commandment.

Irrespective of your views on Scottish Independence, by posting on this thread you are voting YES to abiding by the Ship's Ten Commandments. If you wish to vote NO, take your disagreement to Hell. Thank you.

/hostly reminder
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
As an outsider, it's hard to imagine British politics without bright young men from Scotland coming down to London to tell the British how they are doing everything wrong.

I Has there been any European Union reaction to the Scottish Independence movement? Does it echo in the other European regional independence movements? Does this seem like an attempt to double representation of the UK? Or is it the policy ignore internal national struggles lest your own be discussed?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

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.

---

Untrue. Because the Italian diaspora are identified via Italian citizenship. There is no such thing as 'Scottish citizenship' currently by which to perform an equivalent action.

---

That is correct, but the SNP have outlined a set of well-defined criteria for who can become a citizen of post-secession Scotland. Surely it would make sense to open up the referendum to the whole of that group which the SNP calls citizens of Scotland?

---

I knew you'd say that. Which is why I've prepared my response already:

There is a fundamental difference between being a citizen, and being eligible to apply for citizenship when the time comes. Unless the SNP is going to make all those people citizens post-independence, whether they want to be citizens or not, then the two lists are not equivalent.

It should be noted that some countries do basically co-opt people into citizenship automatically without consulting the people concerned. Actually, it happens to almost all of us upon our birth... but apart from that, such situations are not especially common.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 

quote:

---

...it's hard to imagine British politics without bright young men from Scotland coming down to London to tell the British how they are doing everything wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
Yes, but he was a product of English higher education, as per my last post. Oxford 1985 to 1988, President of the Oxford Union.Says it all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:
Thankfully, Scottish education is a devolved matter so he can't do harm to our much better system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Surely it would make sense to open up the referendum to the whole of that group which the SNP calls citizens of Scotland?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The "people of Scotland" overwhelmingly, in effect, means ethnic Scots.

---

I think you'll find the 2011 census disagreeing with you. On ethnicity (and other stuff) 17% of the population of Scotland were born outside Scotland, 7% of the population born outside the UK. And, of course, many of those born in Scotland would be born of parents who were themselves born outside Scotland. Those numbers would have increased since then.

And, there is considerable cultural diversity even within those who were born in Scotland with parents and grandparents born in Scotland. Just as there would be if I replace "Scotland" with "England" (or, indeed practically any other country). There is more to Scottish culture than tartan, bag pipes and tossing the caber.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not haggis.
 

---

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Surely it would make sense to open up the referendum to the whole of that group which the SNP calls citizens of Scotland?

---

It makes no sense from the Yes point of view to do this. I agree with the point made earlier that non-Scots resident in Scotland are more likely to vote Yes than Scots resident outside Scotland.

There is no advantage to the Yes camp in linking their campaign to ethnic nationalism, because they get all its advantages, without being able to be accused pandering to them. Good grief, it is only because an independent Scotland would be an old-fashioned nation-state that this debate is happening at all. It is one of the most monocultural regions of the UK. The "people of Scotland" overwhelmingly, in effect, means ethnic Scots.

Pardon me my cynicism on this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not haggis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not haggis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not haggis.

---

If you're not keen on a whole plateful of haggis, something like a haggis and mozzarella panini, or chicken breast stuffed with haggis, in a whisky cream sauce, might convince you that haggis is, in fact, delicious.

I wouldn't recommend haggis pizza, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Tell me, at least, that the defining characteristic is not haggis.

---

If it is, I'm in on the grounds of a single visit in 2000. I found it delicious. Mind you, I did try a version in a high class restaurant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yam-pk:
So, basically, the arguments for independence consist of the grievances felt by all regions of the UK, coupled with the positive aspects of much of rest of the UK. But of course as Scotland is a nation, these attributes can be dressed up as this sort of romantic holier-than-thou-Scotland-is-a-more equal-fluffier-and-happier-country-than-England cods-wallop...

Move on people there's nothing see here...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I prefer living in Massachusetts to living in Southern California, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that they must obviously be made separate countries.

I am sure the Canadians will be able to explain how well independence prevents cultural influence seeping north from a larger, wealthier country. Whatever differences a mind can cook up between the Scottish and the English that is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yam-pk:
So, basically, the arguments for independence consist of the grievances felt by all regions of the UK, coupled with the positive aspects of much of rest of the UK. But of course as Scotland is a nation, these attributes can be dressed up as this sort of romantic holier-than-thou-Scotland-is-a-more equal-fluffier-and-happier-country-than-England cods-wallop...

Move on people there's nothing see here...

---

So you're full-square behind total European integration then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I prefer living in Massachusetts to living in Southern California, but that doesn't lead me to conclude that they must obviously be made separate countries.

I am sure the Canadians will be able to explain how well independence prevents cultural influence seeping north from a larger, wealthier country. Whatever differences a mind can cook up between the Scottish and the English that is.

---

And yet national borders exist. At what point are they justified? Language? But in that case, large parts of both north and South America should run together rather more than they do. History? Borders come and go all the time. Quite a few of the current ones do not reflect the wishes of those living either side of them - hence any number of current wars, insurrections and more or less violent efforts at secession.

How do you come to be the arbiter of nationhood? Jimmy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yam-pk:
So, basically, the arguments for independence consist of the grievances felt by all regions of the UK, coupled with the positive aspects of much of rest of the UK. But of course as Scotland is a nation, these attributes can be dressed up as this sort of romantic holier-than-thou-Scotland-is-a-more equal-fluffier-and-happier-country-than-England cods-wallop...

Move on people there's nothing see here...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yam-pk:
So, basically, the arguments for independence consist of the grievances felt by all regions of the UK, coupled with the positive aspects of much of rest of the UK. But of course as Scotland is a nation, these attributes can be dressed up as this sort of romantic holier-than-thou-Scotland-is-a-more equal-fluffier-and-happier-country-than-England cods-wallop...

Move on people there's nothing see here...

---

Come on, you Scottish workers for the yes vote, you could use this post. Just put it up in prominent places; just as football managers put up stuff in the dressing room criticizing the team.

---

 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So you're full-square behind total European integration then?

---

This absurd argument comes up again and again.

The end of the pro-union argument isn't European integration any more than the end of the pro-independence argument is division of Scotland into 5.3 million completely personalized countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So you're full-square behind total European integration then?

---

This absurd argument comes up again and again.

The end of the pro-union argument isn't European integration any more than the end of the pro-independence argument is division of Scotland into 5.3 million completely personalized countries.

---

And yet the reason it keeps on coming up is that it cuts the ground away under your feet. You want the Scots to be run from Westminster, but you'll be damned if the UK is run from Brussels.

They're the same argument: what's sauce for the EU goose is sauce for the Unionist gander.

---

quote:

---

Zach (and others), it's not an absurd argument in either direction because there simply isn't any SPECIFIC level of integration that can be pointed at, on an objective basis, to say "that ought to be a country", or "that is too large to be a country", or "that is too small to be a country".

---

quote:

---

The only meaningful test of whether something 'should' be a country or not is whether the present arrangements are working. If Massachusetts and California and whatever state is most non-Massachusetts are all coping just fine with present arrangements, then fine, don't change them. If there's a problem, then fine, look at fixing it.

---

You are agreeing with me, but writing like we disagree.

quote:

---

The very essence of a desire for Scottish independence is a sense that present arrangements aren't working satisfactorily. There's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent Scotland, in the same way that there's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent United Kingdom, an independent Vatican City or an independent Flanders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The "people of Scotland" overwhelmingly, in effect, means ethnic Scots.

---

I think you'll find the 2011 census disagreeing with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Francophile:

Please feel free to express cynicism but preferably only if you have lived and worked in Scotland, and experienced the quality of life offered here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What I've said, again and again and again, is that, all things considered, Scotland is doing well enough as part of the Union, and no credible promise from the pro-independence crowd seems worth the risk to the status quo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What I've said, again and again and again, is that, all things considered, Scotland is doing well enough as part of the Union, and no credible promise from the pro-independence crowd seems worth the risk to the status quo.

---

With respect, I think the very reason that you've got some people's back up is that it's not really your place to offer an assessment. In the same way that it isn't mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What I've said, again and again and again, is that, all things considered, Scotland is doing well enough as part of the Union, and no credible promise from the pro-independence crowd seems worth the risk to the status quo.

---

quote:

---

Yes, this point has come through, so it doesn't need to be repeated yet again and again and again. I respect that. Of course, our mutually cherished governance principle (democracy) does also allow for other views to be expressed, and (shudder) perhaps even prevail.

---

quote:

---

Yes, this point has come through, so it doesn't need to be repeated yet again and again and again. I respect that. Of course, our mutually cherished governance principle (democracy) does also allow for other views to be expressed, and (shudder) perhaps even prevail.

---

quote:

---

Zach82, have you visited Scotland? Or are you of Scottish descent? You're obviously very interested in Scottish independence, and I'm wondering where you're getting your sense of the zeitgeist from?

---

quote:

---

I live in a part of Scotland that certainly doesn't feel "oppressed." The oil industry is doing well. We have low unemployment, a good quality of life, good state schools. But much of this is despite, rather than because of, current Government policy. The oil will run out one day, and what then? Independence seems to be more forward-looking than Westminster governance in that respect.

---

quote:

---

Aberdeen currently has more job vacancies than people to fill them. This is partly because most vacancies are for skilled posts requiring specialised knowledge, and most of the unemployed are unskilled. The oil industry is very mobile, and needs to be able to recruit world-wide. Yet Westminster immigration policies are not helpful in this respect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The "people of Scotland" overwhelmingly, in effect, means ethnic Scots.

---

I think you'll find the 2011 census disagreeing with you.

---

I think you'll find the Scottish Government's figures agree with me. 88% of Scottish residents identify as "white Scottish".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And yet the reason it keeps on coming up is that it cuts the ground away under your feet. You want the Scots to be run from Westminster, but you'll be damned if the UK is run from Brussels.

They're the same argument: what's sauce for the EU goose is sauce for the Unionist gander.

---

No, it doesn't. Because of that argument you just ignored.

Furthermore, I would be all for European integration if it had clear benefits. I don't see any inherent value to independence. I value democracy and making a living.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So you're full-square behind total European integration then?

---

This absurd argument comes up again and again.

The end of the pro-union argument isn't European integration any more than the end of the pro-independence argument is division of Scotland into 5.3 million completely personalized countries.

---

And yet the reason it keeps on coming up is that it cuts the ground away under your feet. You want the Scots to be run from Westminster, but you'll be damned if the UK is run from Brussels.

They're the same argument: what's sauce for the EU goose is sauce for the Unionist gander.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't accept that. I feel like I'm a British citizen, with instinctive loyalties and solidarity with other Britons. I don't feel like I'm a European citizen. Certainly not in any political sense.

You might not agree with that position, but there's no inherent contradiction.

---

• I feel like a British citizen, not European
• My instinctive loyalties are with the UK not the EU
• I think EU policies do not meet the needs of the UK economy
• There are policies that I think the UK should enact, but are prevented doing so by Brussels

• I feel like a Scottish citizen, not British
• My instinctive loyalties are with the Scotland not the UK
• I think UK policies do not meet the needs of the Scottish economy
• There are policies that I think Scotland should enact, but are prevented doing so by Westminster

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Strange, I hit "edit," finished the message, then it wouldn't let me post the edit. Anyway,

quote:

---

Yes, this point has come through, so it doesn't need to be repeated yet again and again and again. I respect that. Of course, our mutually cherished governance principle (democracy) does also allow for other views to be expressed, and (shudder) perhaps even prevail.

---

Apparently, I do have to keep repeating it, because people keep asking me to answer for positions I don't believe in.

As for your arguments,
1.This is obvious, but as yet the more credible benefits looks pretty small. You proposed the possibility of Scotland offering more tourist visas. Woo? On the other hand, it could be better off in the Union. Not that you or others will even think about the possibility.

No, I said Scotland would have the liberty to join the Schengen agreement without consent of WM, if it felt this served its purposes, e.g. for tourism. Please read what was argued. Of course, the argument does not start and stop there as you represent it in this response, it was merely an example.

2.So I hear? I haven't seen any that would thrill me.

Zach, I regret to inform you that your taste is not the measure of all things. The arguments are out there for liking or disliking, and for discussion. They don't pop out existence just because you've decided that you don't want to buy into them.

3.I haven't seen much cognizance of risks at all. It seems beyond question, for example, that Scotland will be admitted to the EU, when that is by no means a given, or even very likely.

What exactly are you saying with this statement? Are you saying that it is virtually impossible that Scotland would be granted admission? If so, I would be curious to your reasoning.

4.This simply fails to understand that "status quo" means. Nothing in "status quo" means "it will stay this way forever and ever, amen."

If I fail to understand the true meaning of "status quo", please do enlighten me. While you're at it, you may also wish to rewrite the entire wikipedia page on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo


5.Ah, "identity." Another word for nationalism. I still consider "we're just so special and different" a poor basis for making policy decisions. You can, on the other hand, have all the identity you like in the union.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Those who have objections to further European integration, or actively seek the removal of the UK from the EU, raise a set of arguments. They include the one Anglican't used, there are others. A very broad summary (that I recognise doesn't do justice to the arguments) could include:

• I feel like a British citizen, not European
• My instinctive loyalties are with the UK not the EU
• I think EU policies do not meet the needs of the UK economy
• There are policies that I think the UK should enact, but are prevented doing so by Brussels

When it comes to Scotland, the arguments look remarkably similar:

• I feel like a Scottish citizen, not British
• My instinctive loyalties are with the Scotland not the UK
• I think UK policies do not meet the needs of the Scottish economy
• There are policies that I think Scotland should enact, but are prevented doing so by Westminster

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Those who have objections to further European integration, or actively seek the removal of the UK from the EU, raise a set of arguments. ... A very broad summary (that I recognise doesn't do justice to the arguments) could include:

• I feel like a British citizen, not European
• My instinctive loyalties are with the UK not the EU
• I think EU policies do not meet the needs of the UK economy
• There are policies that I think the UK should enact, but are prevented doing so by Brussels

When it comes to Scotland, the arguments look remarkably similar:

• I feel like a Scottish citizen, not British
• My instinctive loyalties are with the Scotland not the UK
• I think UK policies do not meet the needs of the Scottish economy
• There are policies that I think Scotland should enact, but are prevented doing so by Westminster

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
All of the indicators of being a country are descriptors, mostly having to do with independent governance that isn't answerable to a higher level of governance. But none of those indicators are in any way normative.

---

quote:

---

The only meaningful test of whether something 'should' be a country or not is whether the present arrangements are working. If Massachusetts and California and whatever state is most non-Massachusetts are all coping just fine with present arrangements, then fine, don't change them. If there's a problem, then fine, look at fixing it.

The very essence of a desire for Scottish independence is a sense that present arrangements aren't working satisfactorily. There's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent Scotland, in the same way that there's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent United Kingdom, an independent Vatican City or an independent Flanders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I don't get is the fact that there seems to be a large number of people who accept and agree with the arguments when the subject is Scottish independence from Britain, but not when the subject is British independence from Europe. How can the exact same arguments be valid for one cause but not for the other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I would like to see is a Europe in which as much government as possible is maintained at the local scale, and by "local" I mean smaller than nation states - even Scotland in many aspects would be too large an area for some parts of government.

---

quote:

---

I also think that there are some aspects of government that need larger structures.

---

quote:

---

On the larger scale, I think defence is something that needs large scale. I personally consider the White Papers claims that a Scottish only defense force would be viable to be very poorly argued. I would also say that in the modern world, even the UK as a whole is not able to maintain a military force capable of meeting all potential needs. I think we need to be looking towards some form of European joint defense force; but that also needs a European government able to command that force into action for the good of Europe and individual nations in Europe, without first having to get agreement from all national governments.

---

quote:

---

There are also economic issues that require large government. Even if Scotland adopts a Scottish currency with a Scottish bank as lender of last resort, rather than maintains the pound/Bank of England system, that's not going to make Scotland economically independent. Scotland is still going to depend on international trade, many businesses in Scotland are still going to be owned by corporations outside Scotland, Scottish products are still going to have meet standards set in other nations. Scotland is still going to have to be part of international government establishing trade rules, common standards etc. The UK as a whole is too small for such a level of government, which is why the UK joined with Europe in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Scotland isn't positing an independence outside of the EU.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Scotland isn't positing an independence outside of the EU.

---

Then it isn't positing independence, just trading one set of masters for another. And the new masters will be even bigger, further away and less likely to give a shit than the current ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would we need a defence force at the continent-wide level? Who exactly are we defending against, and why do we need such a massive force to defend against them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I didn't say we needed a massive defense force. As you say, there's no one threatening to invade Europe.

---

quote:

---

Alternatively, instead of there being dozens of aircraft carrier groups in different European nations doing nothing most of the time there was a European navy then that could provide the same level of protection for the interests of European nations and participation in international peace keeping and humanitarian actions, with a fraction of the number of ships and associated costs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You mean stuff like invading other countries to secure oil supplies and playing "World Police"? I'd prefer us to stop doing that sort of thing altogether. As far as I'm concerned the only thing we need a defence force for is to defend our nation against invasion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You mean stuff like invading other countries to secure oil supplies and playing "World Police"? I'd prefer us to stop doing that sort of thing altogether. As far as I'm concerned the only thing we need a defence force for is to defend our nation against invasion.

---

What about delivering emergency aid to Filipinos?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The only meaningful test of whether something 'should' be a country or not is whether the present arrangements are working. If Massachusetts and California and whatever state is most non-Massachusetts are all coping just fine with present arrangements, then fine, don't change them. If there's a problem, then fine, look at fixing it.

The very essence of a desire for Scottish independence is a sense that present arrangements aren't working satisfactorily. There's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent Scotland, in the same way that there's nothing inherently right or wrong about an independent United Kingdom, an independent Vatican City or an independent Flanders.

---

I don't disagree with this - nations have to be able to function on a day-to-day basis. But isn't this only half the story? Arguments for and against the existence of independent nation states do not only exist on a functional basis but also on an emotional basis, don't they?

Isn't some of the desire for Scottish nationhood based on an emotional desire for it, which may or may not depend on whether the current arrangements are working satisfactorily?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DocTor:
No, it is the same argument: an absurdist reductionist counter isn't a valid counter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
No, I said Scotland would have the liberty to join the Schengen agreement without consent of WM, if it felt this served its purposes, e.g. for tourism. Please read what was argued. Of course, the argument does not start and stop there as you represent it in this response, it was merely an example.

---

quote:

---

Zach, I regret to inform you that your taste is not the measure of all things. The arguments are out there for liking or disliking, and for discussion. They don't pop out existence just because you've decided that you don't want to buy into them.

---

quote:

---

What exactly are you saying with this statement? Are you saying that it is virtually impossible that Scotland would be granted admission? If so, I would be curious to your reasoning.

---

quote:

---

If I fail to understand the true meaning of "status quo", please do enlighten me. While you're at it, you may also wish to rewrite the entire wikipedia page on the subject.

---

quote:

---

If you treat "identity" as a synonym of "nationalism", then this may go some way to explaining the one-dimensionality of some of the arguments you have presented here.
Ever heard of religious identity, gender identity, language identity, professional, identity, group identity, ... all things which can be held simultaneously and explain the complexity of the phenomenon?

---

I treat 'identity' as a synonym for 'nationalism' in this case because the identity referenced is national identity.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'll say to you what I said to Zach/Anglican't: I can't think of any Westminster powers that can't be better served by being devolved up or down other than UK-wide infrastructure projects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The status quo referenced is "Scotland is in the UK." If the circumstances around that status quo change, then Scotland can vote again in a decade or so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Coming to British identity, there is a degree of assymmetry between the English and Scottish perspective. For the English, who make up 95% of the British, British = English with a mild and interesting Celtic flavouring.
For the Scottish, it is essentially Englishness, with a few isolated bits of themselves swimming in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The "people of Scotland" overwhelmingly, in effect, means ethnic Scots.

---

I think you'll find the 2011 census disagreeing with you.

---

I think you'll find the Scottish Government's figures agree with me. 88% of Scottish residents identify as "white Scottish".

---

Your link gives figures for the 2001 census, I'd linked to the 2011 census. Despite ludicrous restrictions on immigration imposed from Westminster there is ongoing net migration to Scotland, so even the 2011 figures will be out of date (but, the most recent available). The corresponding "white Scottish" figure for 2011 is 84% ( Table 2 of this pdf ) - some of whom will be born outside Scotland, of course, so that doesn't necessarily contradict my earlier figures. Certainly, "white Scottish" is the majority, but >15% of the population claiming alternative ethnicity is a substantial figure. I don't have time to find the comparable figures for the rest of the UK, but my gut feeling is that outside London, 15-20% "non-indigenous" (ie: including people moving into the area from other parts of the UK) is probably fairly typical.

Certainly, the claim from the Scottish Government/YES campaign that we live in a multicultural society is well founded. Not just in the numbers from the census. Also from experience, travel around large towns in Scotland and you will see a wide range of ethnic restaurants, often stores catering to particular ethnic groups. Listen to the people on the street and there will be a large range of accents and languages (even after excluding the tourists).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
It is national identity, rather than place of birth, that really counts in questions like these.

---

quote:

---

So I think both my points stand: 1. Scotland is comparatively monocultural and 2. white Scots will determine the outcome of this vote without the Yes camp courting suicide by explicitly courting their vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by crunt:
Here's a thought. If Scotland leaves the Union, can we PLEASE re-design the flag to include the black and gold cross of St David in place of the Saltire. Seriously though, what would the Union flag look like if Scotland leaves?

---

quote:

---

Anglican't: That said, the BBC have had some fun guessing what a revised flag might look like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
There was some discussion of this upthread. I suspect it will stay the same for some time (after all, the Fleur de Lys remained on the Royal Standard unti 1801).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deano:
A white cross on a white background.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
There was some discussion of this upthread. I suspect it will stay the same for some time (after all, the Fleur de Lys remained on the Royal Standard unti 1801).

---

Indeed. It would be important for the UK government to take their time with it for three reasons - to make sure they get it right, to demonstrate their continued sovereignity, and to remind the Scottish that seceding means they no longer have any say in when, how and what decisions are made in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

Though maybe "Scottishness" really is powerful enough to overcome the natural instincts of politicians and monied elite classes. Who knows?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
There was some discussion of this upthread. I suspect it will stay the same for some time (after all, the Fleur de Lys remained on the Royal Standard unti 1801). That said, the BBC have had some fun guessing what a revised flag might look like.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0