Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Reveilled
Apr 19, 2007

Take up your rifles
"For as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
--Declaration of Arbroath, 1320

In 2014 Scotland is due to go to the polls to decide on our future within or without the United Kingdom. It is a question that has a long and detailed history, the complex and uncertain relationship between Scotland and England going back thousands of years. But things have come to a head more recently and Scotland may soon become an independent nation for the first time in 300 years.

Background on the Scottish Parliament

The question of Home Rule for Scotland has been an issue in the relationship between Scotland and the central government in Westminster ever since the Kilbrandon Report in 1973 recommended a devolved Scottish assembly be given control over the running of Scottish affairs. One of the events which spurred the creation of this commission was a victory by the Scottish National Party in the 1967 by-election in Hamilton, their first victory at the national level in a "normal" election. Support for the Nationalists has fluctuated since that time, but until the beginning of the 21st century and the rise of reactionary and fascist parties such as UKIP and the BNP, they generally received the fourth largest share of the vote nationally despite running candidates only in a part of the United Kingdom which held about 10% of the population. In 1979, a referendum was held to ask whether scotland ought to have a devolved assembly to manage Scottish affairs. This assembly would not have any powers of taxation independent of the Westminister government and would be restricted in how it was allowed to allocate its funds. In a fashion that may seem like retrospective deja vu to anyone who saw the "[this baby] needs life-saving treatment, not an alternative voting system" adverts of the recent alternative vote referendum in the UK, the debate was therefore steered to the question of whether this assembly would just be a toothless waste of taxpayer money that could be used to better ends. Despite this, the referendum was a narrow victory for the "yes" campaign, with 51% of voters supporting devolution, with a turnout of 63%. However, one clause in the referendum legislation stated that a "yes" vote would be valid only if 40% of all eligible voters voted yes, and because this criteria was not met, devolution was not enacted. The SNP withdrew support from the minority Labour government (it was a Labour MP that inserted the clause regarding eligible voters), and a few weeks later a vote of no confidence toppled the Labour government, leading to an election and 18 years of Conservative government.

In 1997 the first Labour government in almost 20 years was elected, and one of their key election promises in Scotland was the creation of a Scottish Parliament to give Scots some level of control over their own affairs. After a successful referendum on the issue, the Scottish Parliament was created and elections were held.

SNP Majority Government

The SNP had been the opposition part upon the creation of the parliament, which was essentially designed to create a roughly proportional house with the consequent effect of creating coalition government due to the four-way split in Scotland between Labour, the SNP, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. For the first two terms of the Parliament the government consisted of a Labour/Liberal coalition, which was defeated by the SNP in 2007 which ran a minority government for four years. In the meantime, the Labour government down south was wavering and losing legitimacy, and after the Conservatives won power in general election in 2010 and began to govern with Liberal Democrat support, there was a significant shift in the electoral dynamics of Scotland. In 2011, the SNP won a landslide victory in the face of a weak and divided opposition, a collapse in the Lib Dem vote, and--allegedly--a deal between the SNP and News International which led to endorsements for the SNP from the Scottish Sun and favourable press in other NI media.

The SNP, in the face of their victory, now intend to hold a referendum on Independence in 2014.

Why does Scotland want independence?

It's a bit simplistic to boil it down to "We hate the Tories", but as a symbol of the divide between Scotland and England it is a functional reason. Scotland is significantly to the left of England, and the Conservative party (who are commonly referred to as "the Tories", which was what their party was called up until the early 19th century) has very minimal support north of the border--specifically, of the conservative party's 306 MPs, only one holds a scottish seat, the most they've ever held in Scotland since their wipeout in the 1997 general election. To emphasise this point, have a look at the map below, of the last general election:



Look at that sea of blue, stopped entirely at the red belt across central Scotland. That most northerly blue constituency is Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, and that's the only conservative seat in Scotland. As such, many people feel a government by the Conservatives does not represent them, and that the sort of country they want to live in cannot be created while they are shackled to Tory Middle England.

There's also a cultural factor. Scotland and England are old enemies in a manner which is mostly expressed innocuously these days--most commonly in the manner of supporting the opposition whenever an English sporting team is competing against someone--but the upshot of that is that while there are certainly plenty of people in Scotland who see themselves as British, nobody sees themself as English and there's a long-standing low level grievance that the English (and international) media tend to see those as being the same thing. It's a minor issue, but nationalist feeling can swell up when our towns are decorated in English flags by "patriotic" corportations seeking to advertise how much they love England whenever England qualifies for a major tournament like the World Cup. It's very easy to overstate how important this is, but it does have an importance, which is why Scotland has an independence movement and the North of England doesn't.

The way the two come together is that there's a feeling that a conservative government, largely elected by rural englanders and rich suburbanites from the South East, will govern purely in the interests of England in general and South East England in particular. This is a feeling that is pervasive throughout Scotland, not even just on the part of those who seek Independence, and is arguably a larger part of the reason for the victory of the SNP than an actual majority of Scots suddenly turning in favour of independence outright.

I want to expand on this a little and discuss about the major political parties in the UK. Despite Scotland being generally more left wing, we're not talking Venezuela or Cuba here. There certainly is that old strain of hard left socialism running through Scotland, but the SNP are not radical socialists. In fact, one recent article in the Guardian described them as the "last British party", arguing that the other three major parties had essentially taken on American neo-liberal ideals while the SNP had essentially remained true to the postwar consensus of Social Democracy. That's not an analysis I think is fully true (as it downplays the role of Thatcherism in forcing Labour and the Lib Dems to the right, and also downplays some of the neoliberal elements of the SNP), but it does get to the core of the issue, which is that the people of Scotland in general trend more towards wanting Social Democracy at a minimum. This is what parties such as Labour used to represent, and in the years prior to the most recent general election were what the Scottish Liberal Democrats implied they represented too. But the local branches of these parties are essentially beholden to their central offices in England, such that Scottish voters who elected the previous labour government got top level tax reductions and illegal wars, while Lib Dem voters who elected a Liberal MP this time around found that they had indirectly helped the Tories into power. Couple that with the massively ineffectual Ed Milliband and his complete unwillingness or inability to provide a coherent left-wing narrative as an alternative to the current dominant austerity-focused one, and this appears to have been the breaking point for a large number of people leading to the SNP. Expanding on the map above, we can compare the Scottish election results in 2007 against the ones in 2011, one year after the liberal-conservative government came in and Scotland went to the polls. This was the result:


You can see the drop in support for the three major UK-wide parties very clearly here, though it must be mentioned that they picked up a lot of regional seats in the proportional top up.

There are two big issues around the whole thing. There's the question of whether Scotland can survive as an indepenent state on its own, and then there's the question of how the referendum ought to be structured.

The Referendum

This was a large bone of contention between Holyrood and Westminister, especially in the early weeks after the SNP won the election. To boil it down, the referendum the SNP want is this:
  • Held in 2014
  • Two Questions: Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? If Scotland stays in the United Kingdom, should control of all domestic governance within Scotland be transferred to the Scottish parliament (Yes/No)? (This last option is called "Devolution-Max" and may not follow this exact wording)
  • British, EU and Commonwealth citizens who are resident in Scotland can vote
  • Voting age to be reduced to 16 (which is the age of majority in Scotland)

What the Unionists want depends on the time of day, the weather, arterial patterns on the livers of sacrificed chickens and such, but has variously included:

Most of these concerns have generally fallen by the wayside, but they pop up from time to time as if they've never been asked before or anwered by the Nationalists.

Although this OP focuses mostly on background and procedural topics, the thread is about statistical and factual arguments for and against independence as well. What I'd be very interested to know from anyone following this from further afield is how your own national media are portraying this. Is it mentioned at all? What do they say about us?

Comment from everyone is encouraged, but what I'd especially like to see is discussion of articles with facts and figures attached, as opposed to just merely throwing around opinions. They're surprisingly hard to find these days, virtually all the major news coverage has just been "<important person> expressed this opinion" with very few hard facts or analysis. If you have read articles such as these, please post them!

Reveilled fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jun 15, 2012

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Reveilled
Apr 19, 2007

Take up your rifles
Interesting things will go here.

This pro-nationalist poem may be interesting:
Vote Britain
This is a good example of the cultural thing I was talking about.

Reveilled fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 16, 2012

Etherwind
Apr 22, 2008
Probation
Can't post for 107 days!
Soiled Meat
For anyone wondering what the gently caress the "If Orkney and Shetland vote no, they stay in the UK" idea is about, here's the clarification:

Oil.

It really is that blatant.

Fatkraken
Jun 23, 2005

Fun-time is over.
What is a Scottish citizen as defined by the voting rules, and how is it different from people resident in Scotland? I was born and live in England but I'm a British citizen, as are people in Wales, NI and Scotland. If I or someone like me was to move North of the border, would that make me eligible to vote? What about someone born in Scotland but currently residing elsewhere in the UK? And non UK citizens living in Scotland.

Elotana
Dec 12, 2003

and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account
I knew England was to the right of Scotland, but I had no idea it was that stark until I saw the map.

Would an independent Scotland seek greater integration with the EU, or has that been downplayed as a result of the crisis?

Reveilled
Apr 19, 2007

Take up your rifles

Fatkraken posted:

What is a Scottish citizen as defined by the voting rules, and how is it different from people resident in Scotland? I was born and live in England but I'm a British citizen, as are people in Wales, NI and Scotland. If I or someone like me was to move North of the border, would that make me eligible to vote? What about someone born in Scotland but currently residing elsewhere in the UK? And non UK citizens living in Scotland.

I'll update the OP, that was actually poorly phrased on my part. Essentially anyone legally resident in Scotland will be permitted to vote in the referendum under the SNP's plans as long as you are a British, EU, or Commonwealth citizen. So yes, you would be eligible to vote. Scottish expats will not be eligible.

Elotana posted:

I knew England was to the right of Scotland, but I had no idea it was that stark until I saw the map.

Would an independent Scotland seek greater integration with the EU, or has that been downplayed as a result of the crisis?

The SNP are generally favourable to greater EU integration, and would seek to ensure that upon independence Scotland remains a member of the EU (essentially upgrading its status in the EU from a "region" to a "member state"). As to what would happen afterward, the major parties are all pro-EU, but I don't think we'd looking to join the Euro any time soon or anything like that, though that's just my own speculation.

Kaislioc
Feb 14, 2008

quote:

What is a Scottish citizen as defined by the voting rules, and how is it different from people resident in Scotland?

I'm not sure what as meant by Scottish citizen, but...

https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/scotreferendum

Chapter 2 posted:

2.10 As proposed in the Scottish Government's 2010 consultation paper, and following the precedent of the 1997 referendum, eligibility to vote in the referendum will be based on that for Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections.

...

2.11 The following groups of people will therefore be entitled to vote in the referendum:

British citizens resident in Scotland
Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland
citizens of the Republic of Ireland and other EU countries resident in Scotland
members of the House of Lords resident in Scotland
Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK or overseas in the Armed Forces or with Her Majesty's Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.

quote:

If I or someone like me was to move North of the border, would that make me eligible to vote?

Yes.

quote:

What about someone born in Scotland but currently residing elsewhere in the UK?

No.

quote:

And non UK citizens living in Scotland.

I'm tempted to say yes, but it might only be for British, Commonwealth and EU Citizens.

ReidRansom
Oct 25, 2004


I'm normally a bit against countries splitting up unless there are some pretty serious issues in staying put, like on the verge of civil war type stuff, but I've got a soft spot for Scotland. A solid, working class country if ever there was, and also my family comes from up around Inverness, so there's that. I'm having trouble though with some of the logistics. Does it become another commonwealth country like Canada and Australia, or is there some in-between status in mind? EU integration? How to disentangle current ties?

e: pretty much the same questions I have when people talk about the EU breaking up. The 'why' I can understand. The 'how' is far more problematic.

ReidRansom fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jun 15, 2012

Squido
May 21, 2005
Ask me about being a paedophile.
I'm fairly interested in how it would all happen, and how assets and such would be split between the two countries, e.g. military, oil etc. It starts getting a bit mind boggling the magnitude of what the split would do, all of the legal issues and treaties etc to be worked out.

I'm fairly against it as it'd push the rest of the UK further right and also from an ideological point of view of being stronger together and weaker apart. Obviously that's pretty selfish as i'm English but there you have it! I suppose it could be great for Scotland if it worked out how I assume many envisage in that the Oil fields could make the country quite wealthy, becoming a bit more economically and politically like a nordic state?

Etherwind
Apr 22, 2008
Probation
Can't post for 107 days!
Soiled Meat

Squido posted:

ideological point of view of being stronger together and weaker apart.

Could you explain how you see Scotland being stronger with England than without?

Squido
May 21, 2005
Ask me about being a paedophile.

Etherwind posted:

Could you explain how you see Scotland being stronger with England than without?

I meant the UK being stronger with Scotland than without Scotland, as i'm not Scottish I look at this as an outsider. Granted not something perhaps high on the list of priorities of a Scottish person voting on the issue, but as I said my opinions are fairly selfish!

Etherwind
Apr 22, 2008
Probation
Can't post for 107 days!
Soiled Meat
Since you're being honest, let me ask you a question. If Scotland was to leave the union, but England was to keep the oil, where would you stand on the issue?

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

I really want the Union to stay together. I feel the exact same way about Wales, although since I have a lot of family there, I have a stronger investment. The UK has a strong shared history. Through two World Wars, and even Bonaparte, a strong united UK has bennefitted the people of the isles.

The Economist also wrote an excellent article about how the Scottish economy would fare without the UK, and it isn't pretty. Especially in light of what's happened to Ireland, strong nation-states will weather to current crisis much better than small ones.

KingFisher
Oct 30, 2006
WORST EDITOR in the history of my expansion school's student paper. Then I married a BEER HEIRESS and now I shitpost SA by white-knighting the status quo to defend my unearned life of privilege.
Fun Shoe
Is there anything that can be done to help this effort?
I am a huge fan of devolution in as many states as possible.
Free Scotland, Free Wales, Free Cornwall.

I will stand for the independence of any people, with any ideology from any larger state. We need 1000 countries, let local control bloom.

Reveilled
Apr 19, 2007

Take up your rifles

ReidRansom posted:

I'm normally a bit against countries splitting up unless there are some pretty serious issues in staying put, like on the verge of civil war type stuff, but I've got a soft spot for Scotland. A solid, working class country if ever there was, and also my family comes from up around Inverness, so there's that. I'm having trouble though with some of the logistics. Does it become another commonwealth country like Canada and Australia, or is there some in-between status in mind? EU integration? How to disentangle current ties?

e: pretty much the same questions I have when people talk about the EU breaking up. The 'why' I can understand. The 'how' is far more problematic.

Well, the SNP have said that they'd like to keep the Queen as the current head of State, so I would interpret from that that Scotland would become a commonwealth realm. I'm not sure what an in-between status would be if we're talking about an independent state, probably the closest thing to an in-between status would be the "Devolution-max" option where Scotland gains control of its domestic affairs while foreign affairs are left to Westminister, but this would be an extention of the current system without a radical change (though I think this would create larger constitutional hurdles in the long run*). As to how the current ties would be disentangled, there is precedent for that from places like Czechoslovakia and Ireland, and arguably in some ways it is easier for Scotland than for most other nations because many of our institutions are already seperate within the UK (we have our own national health service, our own education system, our own legal system, etc). There are issues like national defence and national debt which would need to be resolved through negotiation prior to independence, of course..

*This is actually probably something worth expanding on.

The West Lothian Question

Currently, the Parliament at Westminister manages both domestic English affairs as well as affairs relating to the whole of the United Kingdom, Generally when a bill is put before the house, every single member of the House of Commons votes on it. So a change to the Anglo-Welsh education system, for example, would be voted on by MPs from Scotland at the instruction of their parties. The same is not true for a vote on Scottish education, as that would be done at the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood in Edinburgh. So this is the West Lothian Question:

Why is an MP from a Scottish constituency (such as West Lothian) permitted to vote on English matters, when an MP from an English consituency is not able to vote of Scottish matters?

Now you might think the answer is a very obvious "the Scottish MPs shouldn't be able to vote when the parliament is discussing purely English matters" but it's not as easy as that. Imagine we had a situation where the majority of MPs were Labour, giving us a Labour cabinet and a Labour prime minister. The majority is slim however, and exists only because of Labour's strongholds in South Wales and Central Scotland. This means that when these MPs are not permitted to vote, the party of government may no longer be the largest party. Worse still, the leader of the opposition might actually have a majority of the English MPs! This could mean one party is controlling the passing of things like education and health reform, while a completely different party is in charge of setting the tax rates and other bugetary matters.

One possible solution to this is an English parliament, which oversees all domestic matters with appropriate taxation powers and such, while the parliament in Westminister deals only with national matters like defence and foreign affairs. But now you run into another issue, which is that the First Minister of England represents 85% of the population of Great Britain. What will the power dynamic between the English First Minister and the Prime Minister be? If there was a conflict between the two (likely, given that the English Prime Minister would frequently be a Conservative while the British Prime Minister would be a member of the Labour Party), would the prime minister really be percieved to have much in the way of legitimacy?

The option the Labour party sought to adopt to resolve the issue was further devolution, the creation of regional assemblies within England to manage local affairs. But the referendum to give one to the North of England failed and the plans were quetly shelved. So right now things are muddling along, but the more power is devolved to Scotland, the worse the problem becomes. An in-between status like devolution-max could very well be setting things up for a constitutional crisis further down the line.

Kin
Nov 4, 2003

Sometimes, in a city this dirty, you need a real hero.
Crossposting from the general UK thread because you made this thread while i was digging about :

Some stuff for a the Scotland OP:

There was an article I came across that highlighted anti-independence bias within BBC scotland. It contained video clips of broadcasts as well as critical analysis of what was contained within them. I'm sure it was shortly after the rugby fiasco but I can't remember how i came across it and Google isn't providing much help. Maybe someone here can remember where it was.

I did, however, stumble across an anti-independence bias facebook page which (if it's run properly) may act as a source for evidence of BBC manipulation.

I also just came across Newsnet Scotland which may have some good sources of information for an OP. Of particular interest might be the page on Unionist scare stories.

This is the article I read that first gave me the figures for taxation vs population.

There's the Gers reports too but there are contentions from opposition about things being omitted, true deficit (deficits :rolleyes:) levels, etc and I've not personally read too much into this topic yet.

Kin fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jun 15, 2012

Squido
May 21, 2005
Ask me about being a paedophile.

Etherwind posted:

Since you're being honest, let me ask you a question. If Scotland was to leave the union, but England was to keep the oil, where would you stand on the issue?

I don't know enough about it to have a firm opinion, it's one of the reasons this thread interested me. Having looked at a map of North Sea oil fields the majority in the UK sector would seem to fall under what one would assume should become a Scottish sector. But again I have no idea about oil rights or who paid for the rigs and all the legal issues, as I said it boggles the mind thinking about how you can split things when the countries have been joined together for so long that obviously many decisions by people on both sides of the border have been done with the assumption it would stay as one. I would hope for a smooth transition in the event rather than just cut the two in half.

If all that sounds like dodging the question though I would have to say that those oil fields that are within a Scottish sector (by whatever legal/geographical precedent) should belong to Scotland.

The pedant in me can't help but notice you calling the UK sans Scotland "England" though!

Kaislioc
Feb 14, 2008

quote:

I suppose it could be great for Scotland if it worked out how I assume many envisage in that the Oil fields could make the country quite wealthy, becoming a bit more economically and politically like a nordic state?

Oil and the resulting wealth is definitely a huge issue and has been for some time, to the point of things like this coming out. It's probably worth a read for anyone thinking about oil in relation to Scotland.

quote:

I really want the Union to stay together. I feel the exact same way about Wales, although since I have a lot of family there, I have a stronger investment. The UK has a strong shared history. Through two World Wars, and even Bonaparte, a strong united UK has bennefitted the people of the isles.

The "social union" as the SNP calls it will remain in tact. There's little reason to believe independence would mean families being broken up or harsh immigrations controls popping up so I can't see why having family in other parts of the UK would be an argument against independence or why you would need the Union because of family, but that's probably wandering into opinion territory.

Kaislioc fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jun 15, 2012

Etherwind
Apr 22, 2008
Probation
Can't post for 107 days!
Soiled Meat
In terms of administration, it effectively would be England. Forgive me if I don't put much weight behind Wales and Northern Ireland 's contributions to Westminster.

This got posted in the UK thread, but it's definitely worth reposting here, for a look at the cultural side of things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-znkbMzi4A

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

KingFisher posted:

Is there anything that can be done to help this effort?
I am a huge fan of devolution in as many states as possible.
Free Scotland, Free Wales, Free Cornwall.

I will stand for the independence of any people, with any ideology from any larger state. We need 1000 countries, let local control bloom.

I cannot disagree with this viewpoint enough. If 4000 years of human history, and the last 200 especially have shown us anything, it's that a strong nation-state is economically and politically the strongest. People should be able to look past tribalism and regionalism just like they look past the caste system and sectarianism.

As much as regional interests should be respected, there is no reason to weaken the state as a whole! Scotland, Wales and Cornwall have a tiny fraction of the economic, politcal, and military power of the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales already have strong and active parliments, it isn't like they're being run from Whitehall anymore.

eSports Chaebol
Feb 22, 2005

Yeah, actually, gamers in the house forever,

Squido posted:

I meant the UK being stronger with Scotland than without Scotland, as i'm not Scottish I look at this as an outsider. Granted not something perhaps high on the list of priorities of a Scottish person voting on the issue, but as I said my opinions are fairly selfish!

The corollary to Scotland not electing Tories that people tend to overlook is that they are actually doing a great service to the UK, since without them, until some major realignment occurs, the UK will enjoy a permanent Conservative majority :suicide:

KingFisher
Oct 30, 2006
WORST EDITOR in the history of my expansion school's student paper. Then I married a BEER HEIRESS and now I shitpost SA by white-knighting the status quo to defend my unearned life of privilege.
Fun Shoe

Frosted Flake posted:

I cannot disagree with this viewpoint enough. If 4000 years of human history, and the last 200 especially have shown us anything, it's that a strong nation-state is economically and politically the strongest. People should be able to look past tribalism and regionalism just like they look past the caste system and sectarianism.

As much as regional interests should be respected, there is no reason to weaken the state as a whole! Scotland, Wales and Cornwall have a tiny fraction of the economic, politcal, and military power of the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales already have strong and active parliments, it isn't like they're being run from Whitehall anymore.

Why not just have one big world government then?
You see my goal is to weaken the state, I want 1000 weak states.
I want my Cyber punk mega corporate future.

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

KingFisher posted:

Why not just have one big world government then?
You see my goal is to weaken the state, I want 1000 weak states.
I want my Cyber punk mega corporate future.

Having a lot of tiny, weak states is as absurd as a united world government.
Neither one would represent the interests of citizens as well as a nation.
Scotland has the benefit of UK tax revenue being shared, without the UK, and with a smaller government and tax base, and with less foreign investment, Soctland would be less able to provide for it's populace.

That's without even touching on the loss of influence on the international scale, such as G8, UN Security Council and NATO membership.

Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Jun 15, 2012

Leggsy
Apr 30, 2008

We'll take our chances...

Frosted Flake posted:

Having a lot of tiny, weak states is as absurd as a united world government.
Neither one would represent the interests of citizens as well as a nation.
Scotland has the benefit of UK tax revenue being shared, without the UK, and with a smaller government and tax base, and with less foreign investment, Soctland would be less able to provide for it's populace.

False in every concievable way. Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population and recieves 9.3% of the revenue, but contributes 9.6% back to the UK government. This works out to about £500 per head for every man, woman and child in Scotland. An independent Scotland would be able to reinvest this money to further grow it's economy via tax cuts(which i disagree with) or with infrastructure and social spending.

And the size of the government doesn't mean poo poo. Look at Luxembourg, one of the highest GDPs per head in the world. Even the economic "basket cases" like Ireland and Iceland still have a higher GDP per head and HDI than the UK does.

But this doesn't come to the crux of the issue. The main driving argument for independence is this: That the people best fit to make decisions about the future direction of their country are those that care most about their country, I.E those that live in the country. I belive Scotland should be independent because fundementally I believe Scotland is a seperate country both culturally and politically to that of the United Kingdom.

Kaislioc
Feb 14, 2008

quote:

and with less foreign investment

Why would there be more foreign investment now than as an independent nation controlling it's own policy and finances, especially if you believe the SNPs shite about lowering corporation tax and bending over backwards to make Scotland more attractive for foreign investment? The only things I can find about this particular problem seem to be positive, even from the BBC?

quote:

That's without even touching on the loss of influence on the international scale, such as G8, UN Security Council and NATO membership.

It would be better for us to focus on our ability and right to control the affairs of our nation rather than our ability to interfere in the affairs of other nations, no?

quote:

But this doesn't come to the crux of the issue. The main driving argument for independence is this: That the people best fit to make decisions about the future direction of their country are those that care most about their country, I.E those that live in the country.

But really, this hits the nail right on the head for the lack of a less awkward phrase.

Kaislioc fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jun 15, 2012

staberind
Feb 20, 2008

but i dont wanna be a spaceship
Fun Shoe

Frosted Flake posted:

Having a lot of tiny, weak states is as absurd as a united world government.
Neither one would represent the interests of citizens as well as a nation.
~the rest fell in the sea and drowned~

Do you presently feel your interests are well represented?
Does David Cameron represent your interests?

Konstantin
Jun 20, 2005
And the Lord said, "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.
How would an independent Scotland handle currency? Would they continue using the British pound, create a Scottish pound, or go to the Euro?

Reveilled
Apr 19, 2007

Take up your rifles

Konstantin posted:

How would an independent Scotland handle currency? Would they continue using the British pound, create a Scottish pound, or go to the Euro?

It's difficult to say for certain, as it depends on how independence negotiations go in the event of a yes vote. Moving the the Euro I think would be unlikely, with the current crisis I doubt the Scots would want to join, and the current Eurozone countries probably have too much on their plate right now to properly assess whether Scotland ought to join. Currently in Scotland paper money is not strictly speaking "legal tender", though it is fully accepted in practice, but the consequence of that policy is that several banks in Scotland have licenses to issue paper money which are treated in the exact same way as notes from the Bank of England. So we have the facilites to print our own currency if necessary, but printing a whole new currency would probably be a bit of a hassle to do right at the moment of independence.

So this is just my guess, but I think the most likely scenario would be for Scotland to maintain the British Pound Sterling initially while transitioning to a Scottish Pound pegged 1:1 with the Sterling, then at a later date for that peg to be released, switched to peg the Euro, or for Scotland to switch to the Euro depending on the economic performance of Scotland, the rump UK, and the EU. But that's dependent on negotiation, the UK side of an independence negotiation might demand the Pound Sterling be kept, or that Scotland abandon Sterling for another currency. Similarly I think it unlikely by the EU might demand we switch to the Euro at some specified date.

Peel
Dec 3, 2007

Two otherwise identical nations might or might not do better as one larger nation, but that neglects the fact that England is full of Tories.

Red7
Sep 10, 2008

quote:

But this doesn't come to the crux of the issue. The main driving argument for independence is this: That the people best fit to make decisions about the future direction of their country are those that care most about their country, I.E those that live in the country.

Wouldn't this (for the most part) be served by Devolution Max? Frankly I think an Independent Scotland will damage both the UK and Scotland's ability to act on the world stage. The UN Security Council membership and bodies like NATO are about much more than invading other countries, the same with nuclear weapons, its how the UK has managed to retain as much clout as it does and the loss of that is going to have knock on effects on how we interact with other countries across a broad range of topics.

The same with the armed forces, it will do damage to an already weakened defense establishment (since the cuts) and almost certainly result in the MoD propping up whatever Scotland develops.

I understand that Scotland wants independence, but as far as I see it they are loping off limbs to pursue a nationalist agenda which might not be as fantastic as everyone thinks once the dust settles. Devolution Max seems like much more of a sensible route to take, which I suspect is why the SNP is pushing for 16 year olds to vote, who will almost certainly vote independence regardless.

zero alpha
Feb 18, 2012

by Y Kant Ozma Post
Is there enough support for independence? I thought it was 35-40% depending on how the question is asked.

Active Quasar
Feb 22, 2011

Red7 posted:

Wouldn't this (for the most part) be served by Devolution Max? Frankly I think an Independent Scotland will damage both the UK and Scotland's ability to act on the world stage. The UN Security Council membership and bodies like NATO are about much more than invading other countries, the same with nuclear weapons, its how the UK has managed to retain as much clout as it does and the loss of that is going to have knock on effects on how we interact with other countries across a broad range of topics.

The same with the armed forces, it will do damage to an already weakened defense establishment (since the cuts) and almost certainly result in the MoD propping up whatever Scotland develops.

I understand that Scotland wants independence, but as far as I see it they are loping off limbs to pursue a nationalist agenda which might not be as fantastic as everyone thinks once the dust settles. Devolution Max seems like much more of a sensible route to take, which I suspect is why the SNP is pushing for 16 year olds to vote, who will almost certainly vote independence regardless.


What "clout" do you perceive the UK as having? What is the net benefit of this clout? In the past decade it seems that the military component to this clout has consisted of burning money and lives in fighting the US's war against Islam. I guess it does help ward off Argentinian aggression towards the Falklanders but that doesn't really benefit anyone in Scotland.

Adar
Jul 27, 2001
Thanks for posting this - I've been trying to follow this debate, but it's difficult to find the right sources without the background for it so this is much appreciated. A couple of questions:

Is Devolution Max basically equivalent to the Channel Islands' (and particularly IOM's) government structure in practice? I'm specifically talking about the islands' status as de facto independent, but theoretically subservient to Parliament.

What are the actual chances of this referendum? The BBC seems to think < 50%?

mediadave
Sep 8, 2011
What are the current polls regarding independence? Admittedly it's been a couple of years since I left Scotland, but until then they always seemed to be solidly in favour of the Union, by 55-65%.

Reviled, as you are clearly enthusiastically for independence, how would you feel if Scotland voted against it?


(disclaimer, I'm a solidly Unionist Glaswegian currently working outside Scotland)

Kin
Nov 4, 2003

Sometimes, in a city this dirty, you need a real hero.

Red7 posted:

Wouldn't this (for the most part) be served by Devolution Max? Frankly I think an Independent Scotland will damage both the UK and Scotland's ability to act on the world stage. The UN Security Council membership and bodies like NATO are about much more than invading other countries, the same with nuclear weapons, its how the UK has managed to retain as much clout as it does and the loss of that is going to have knock on effects on how we interact with other countries across a broad range of topics.

Explain these Talking Points please, because I don't really see why we (Scotland) need to care about influencing the "world stage".

I don't know the ins and outs of British Empire history, but I have been wondering how much influence Scotland, Wales and NI have had historically on the conquests of The British Empire and its "clout". I'm assuming that while many good soldiers have come from all of the countries many of British Military actions have come at the behest of Westminster or whatever English Parliament was in power, no?

Adar posted:

What are the actual chances of this referendum? The BBC seems to think < 50%?

The BBC have proven that they cannot be trusted in what they report in regards to independence.

mediadave posted:

Reviled, as you are clearly enthusiastically for independence, how would you feel if Scotland voted against it?

While I can't speak for Reviled, I would feel that the people of our country had been manipulated and lied to through subversive means, all in order to keep the political status quo (and social balance of power) based around centre right wing ideology.

Kin fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jun 16, 2012

mediadave
Sep 8, 2011

Kin posted:

Explain these Talking Points please, because I don't really see why we (Scotland) need to care about influencing the "world stage".

I'm not really a history buff, but I have been wondering how much influence Scotland, Wales and NI have had historically on the conquests of The British Empire and its "clout". I'm assuming that while many good soldiers have come from all of the countries many of British Military actions have come at the behest of Westminster or whatever English Parliament was in power, no?

Scotland was always an incredibly enthusiastic player in Empire.

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011

Semper Shitpost Ubique

Peel posted:

Two otherwise identical nations might or might not do better as one larger nation, but that neglects the fact that England is full of Tories.

I know, and it sucks, but the Tories won't always be in power. Italy and Germany don't fracture every time an unpopular government is elected.

A divided UK will have longer lasting consequences than anything the Tories could do.

Kin posted:

I don't know the ins and outs of British Empire history, but I have been wondering how much influence Scotland, Wales and NI have had historically on the conquests of The British Empire and its "clout". I'm assuming that while many good soldiers have come from all of the countries many of British Military actions have come at the behest of Westminster or whatever English Parliament was in power, no?

In Empire (a fantastic book that I highly reccommend) Niall Ferguson points out that the majority of East India Company men in India were Scots, followed closely by Irishmen. The Scots were on the frontlines of the Empire from the very start and were very influential.

E: Since Kin expressed interest, I'll slap on a little blurb about Empire since it really is a special book. Niall Ferguson makes understanding something as massive and comlicated as the history of the British Empire enjoyable, and does his best to make the issue apolitical. It is also a very very readable book.The prose is entertaining and informative, and the footnotes are excellent if you want to go a bit deeper. Terms and concepts are explained as they come up, and there's no presumption of prior knowledge or a prior position on Imperialism. It's pretty bad

I found the relevent section of the book, and included a quick blurb. There are quite a few pages on the involvement of the Scots, which was something I didn't know before. For example, Scots were vastly more likely to intermarry with natives, and their treatment of them was very different than the English approach, on the whole.

Empire, p. 33 posted:


In the 1750s little more than a tenth of the population of the British Isles lived in Scotland. Yet the East India Company was at the very least half-Scottish. Of 249 writers appointed by the Directors to serve in Bengal in the last decade of Hastings's administration, 119 were Scots. Of 116 candidates for the officer corps of the company's Bengal army recruited in 1782, fifty-six were Scots.


Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jun 16, 2012

Kin
Nov 4, 2003

Sometimes, in a city this dirty, you need a real hero.

Frosted Flake posted:

I know, and it sucks, but the Tories won't always be in power. Italy and Germany don't fracture every time an unpopular government is elected.

A divided UK will have longer lasting consequences than anything the Tories could do.


In Empire (a fantastic book that I highly reccommend) Niall Ferguson points out that the majority of East India Company men in India were Scots, followed closely by Irishmen. The Scots were on the frontlines of the Empire from the very start and were very influential.

A divided UK may force the drastic political change that's been needed to break the UK out of the endless Labour/Tory cycle.

I'll grab a copy of Empire next time I'm in the bookshop, thanks.

TerryCheesecake
Aug 2, 2003
-
This is an interesting article http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2012/05/nationalism-independence-and-the-break-up-of-britain-an-interview-with-neil-davidson/

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Reveilled
Apr 19, 2007

Take up your rifles

mediadave posted:

What are the current polls regarding independence? Admittedly it's been a couple of years since I left Scotland, but until then they always seemed to be solidly in favour of the Union, by 55-65%.

Reviled, as you are clearly enthusiastically for independence, how would you feel if Scotland voted against it?


(disclaimer, I'm a solidly Unionist Glaswegian currently working outside Scotland)

Current polling is in about that region, yes. If the referendum was held today the unionist side would probably win, and that's the primary reason why the unionist parties tried to dictate the referendum to be held as soon as possible, to prevent the possibility of a nationalist campaign that turned that sentiment around.

If Scotland voted to remain in the Union I'd be disappointed. While I'm in favour of independence I don't consider myself to be nationalistic. I want to live in a country where I don't have to worry about disabled family members having their livelihoods destroyed by an IT company contracted out to kick disabled people off benefits. I want to live in a country where families of mixed nationality aren't forced apart or forced into exile because the native partner is too poor. I want to live in a country that doesn't go off galavanting into illegal wars that kill thousands of innocent civilians in pursuit of corportate interests, political expediency, or imaginary weapons. Up until the 2010 General Election I believed the UK could be that country, but now I'm convinced I'll never see the UK become that country in my lifetime. I can't say for certain that an Independent Scotland would be that country, but it certainly seems a drat lot more likely.

Adar posted:

Is Devolution Max basically equivalent to the Channel Islands' (and particularly IOM's) government structure in practice? I'm specifically talking about the islands' status as de facto independent, but theoretically subservient to Parliament.

Maybe, but there's a bit more of an issue there in that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Mann are pretty small places, so hands off approaches work pretty well there. They run their own affairs and the UK runs things like foreign policy and national defence for them. Since they are so minor, even if they had a say in these things it would be so minimal that it would not make a difference. But that's not so much the case with Scotland, which is large enough to have potential interests on national defence and foreign policy that may not align with the rest of the UK (fishing rights in the north and norwegian seas would be a big example, as is the nuclear submarines base at Faslane). So presumably Scotland would have to have a say in those areas, but that could create problems if not carefully managed (see The West Lothian Question, above).

  • Locked thread