Should Scotland have independence?

richie

Dormant account
Joined
Nov 11, 2012
Location
Scotland
I live in Scotland. There is a lit of debate & news about this topic up here. To be honest I can't make my mind up. The thought of not having to worry about David Cameron & the Condem party & their Victorian attitudes anymore really appeals to me, the Tories are a dieing breed up here close to extinction. I feel if Alex Salmond thinks we can do it, maybe we can. But I just can't see how Scotland can afford independence. After all it was two Scottish banks that got bailed out by the UK government, and I worry that if we go independent there will be no more welfare, NHS & a lot of poverty, unless Alex has discovered another oil well in the North sea.

Would be good to hear some different opinions on this as I just don't know, a lot of people here feel the same.
 
Wow nobody answered!

But it's in the news now... so interesting to see what people think?

500 years and more ago it was a huge issue!
 
Good point yes!! A country needs to be independent financially.

Forgive me if I'm wrong... but is the North Sea oil an income? That perhaps Scotland would claim?

Just wondering.
 
Good point yes!! A country needs to be independent financially.

Forgive me if I'm wrong... but is the North Sea oil an income? That perhaps Scotland would claim?

Just wondering.

I hate politics and this whole independence is doing my head in cant wait till next Friday so its decided one way or the other.

But in answer to your question yes the North see oil is an income. Its one of the main reasons Salmond claims Scotland will be better off as its our oil. I would love it if the vote goes the way of independence that this country ends up the way Salmond says it will.

Sadly I very much doubt it will.
 
Westminster seem to be in a panic because they might lose Scotland. Odd really, given their earlier claim that Scotland is subsidised by England. This morning, yet another panic measure. Gordon Brown says that a raft of sweeping new powers will be granted to the Scottish parliament if there is a NO vote. Well, how come these new powers weren't discussed earlier, or granted earlier.

Maybe now even a NO vote won't be a vote for the status quo, but a vote that puts Westminster on notice that they had better deliver on any promises else their failure triggers another referendum because Scots feel they were conned into voting NO through false promises from Westminster. If this happens, it is sure to be a YES, no second chance for Westminster to try another con.

Now, how would England go about getting independence from Westminster:D
 
As a peripheral but interested observer I get the uneasy feeling that Salmond's nationalists are appealing on an emotional rather than practical level, and that could be disastrous.

The lack of detail and forward vision in the arguments I have read and seen is worrying.

Better and stronger united than standing alone in a dangerous world (both economically and militarily) is my view, and the Scots are now in a formidable position to negotiate the sort of reforms they want with Westminster, now they have the full attention and concern of both Labour and Tories.

Natural resources may be plentiful, but they are finite and subject to global changes.

Scots tend to be canny folk, and the end result here is going to be interesting....especially if the theories about the "silent majority" are true.
 
I am not into UK politics but remember that some years after Sweden let Norway go the Norwegians found some oil...:D
 
500 or so years ago there was James 5th and Mary Queen of Scots to argue over.... and English rule. Even before that!!!

Interesting. How do you become an independent and financially secure nation in your own right?
 
500 or so years ago there was James 5th and Mary Queen of Scots to argue over.... and English rule. Even before that!!!

Interesting. How do you become an independent and financially secure nation in your own right?

There are plenty of examples. There are also examples of how things can spill over into conflict when different peoples are forced together in a political union that suits one region more than another.
 
I am not into UK politics but remember that some years after Sweden let Norway go the Norwegians found some oil...:D

And from what I have read the Norwegians have been smart in the manner in which they have used the revenues to build and diversify for the future yet husbanded the resource - it's a very impressive story.
 
As a peripheral but interested observer I get the uneasy feeling that Salmond's nationalists are appealing on an emotional rather than practical level, and that could be disastrous.

The lack of detail and forward vision in the arguments I have read and seen is worrying.

Better and stronger united than standing alone in a dangerous world (both economically and militarily) is my view, and the Scots are now in a formidable position to negotiate the sort of reforms they want with Westminster, now they have the full attention and concern of both Labour and Tories.

Natural resources may be plentiful, but they are finite and subject to global changes.

Scots tend to be canny folk, and the end result here is going to be interesting....especially if the theories about the "silent majority" are true.

I'm a peripheral observer also.

And I agree the motion could be on an emotional rather than on a practical level.

And yes... better to stand as a united front in this world of uncertainty!!!
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of examples. There are also examples of how things can spill over into conflict when different peoples are forced together in a political union that suits one region more than another.

Yes unfortunately there are too many examples...

when will we ever learn???!!!
 
I can offer one reason why Scotland is better off being independent. If you compare dependency to independency it's more ideal being independent. But, of course the question is much bigger than that.

Here is what Mr. Chomsky has to say about it:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm living in Canada and there's a lot of interest here about this topic because the province of Quebec has been trying to secede from Canada for like 50 years. If Scotland DOES become independent, you can pretty well guarantee that it will fan the flames of Canada's smoldering separatist movement as well. That, and we're worried that it might hike up the cost of whisky! :)

Seriously though, I'm not well enough informed to give any opinion on which way it should go. Unfortunately I have a feeling there will probably be protests and/or riots around the world no matter which way it turns out.
 
Here is what Mr. Chomsky has to say about it: ...

No "Thanks" button here but ... thank you for that. :) :thumbsup: Interesting stuff.
 
Not so sure they are better off independent myself. Personally think they're better off economically and politically staying as part of the UK.

Think there's been a few lies told on both campaigns, but what baffled me was Salmond likening this vote to South Africa's first election post apartheid.

Scotland has enjoyed democracy for many a year, whilst many South Africans were excluded from voting simply because of the colour of their skin.

Comes across as a very strange person sometimes does Salmond, some of the nonsense he spouts.
 
Well hopefully by this time tomorrow we will have an answer one way or the other.

The whole thing is beyond a joke. Even at work there are people falling out over this. Whatever the outcome this country is more divided than it ever was, and it will take a long time for normality to return if indeed it does.

For what its worth I have just placed my vote ( I don't normally vote for certain reasons) as this was too important not to. It was a No Thanks to independence.

Regardless of the outcome its ridiculous that such a drastic change to a country can be decided on one single vote. In my opinion hardly a big enough majority for the consequences that lay ahead.
 
Even at work there are people falling out over this. Whatever the outcome this country is more divided than it ever was....

If it helps any that seems to be the outcome of many independence movements whether they succeed or not. Like chayton I'm Canadian and have witnessed an overly generous amount of the fallout that comes from such debates. I'm from Western Canada (generally unsympathetic to Quebec's seperation aspirations) and lived in Quebec during one of the referendums. I'd summarize it as a lot of heat and smoke but not much fire. In the end nothing much changed, and yet the debate simmers away.

I've had cause to revisit this many times over the years and for me it seems to boil down to who the people want to be. In Quebec it could be seen as whether the Quebecers thought they could be better Quebecers within confederation or outside of it. (Speaking as a Western Canadian) I'd say that the central goverment has devolved a lot of power and money to Quebec in order to make them feel that they can be "good" Quebecers within Canada. Of course some disagree that that is even possible but so far the balance seems to be pro-Confederation rather than against it. Part of that balance though is that Quebec is seen as a very real and important part of the country by the central goverment: they put Canadians' money and vote distribution behind that in a very real way. In the end they've probably been given pretty much everything they could ask for, the only step left is outright independence.

Is the same true in Scotland? From the outside it looks as though Westminister has rather a different sort of attitude toward Scotland, at least outside of referendum week (funky looking pledges in weekend newspapers aren't policy). However it goes the way the Scots had stepped up to have their say -- 97% voter registration -- is inspirational in and of itself. Good to see that democracy still has some iron in its veins after all.
 
But in answer to your question yes the North see oil is an income. Its one of the main reasons Salmond claims Scotland will be better off as its our oil.
Why is it Scotland's oil? :confused:

Surely it belongs to the whole of the UK, does it not?
If so, were Scotland to go independent the oil should be split between the 2 countries.

KK
 
My mum's partner is a Scottish immigrant and we have been discussing the topic of Scotland's independence off and on for about two years.
He tells me that this is not the first time Scotland has made a push for independence. I don't know how many times Scotland have tried but it sounds like a lot.

My mum's partner is against Scotland's independence because he is afraid that some right wing lunatics will take over the Scottish parliament.
I think he is paranoid, he has no good reason to believe that.
 
... I don't know how many times Scotland have tried ....

In recent times 1979 (vote for devolution was "Yes" but it was ignored by the goverment because (they said) there was insufficient turn-out) and 1997 (pretty much a landslide "Yes" to Scottish Parliment and "Yes" to tax powers).
 
Why is it Scotland's oil? :confused:

Surely it belongs to the whole of the UK, does it not?
If so, were Scotland to go independent the oil should be split between the 2 countries.

KK

In answer to that I am afraid not. As it is in Scottish waters an independent Scotland would have sole control of any oil in its waters the same with fishing quotas etc. The sad thing is many people believe his comments about how Scotland will be one of the wealthiest nations in the world. I just hope we never get to find out if he was right or wrong.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top