Should Scotland have independence?

[vinylweatherman]

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.

It seems to be that the best campaign for a "yes" vote was the Cameron-Clegg alliance. It was they who said that if Scotland were independent, they would have to effectively rebuild Hadrian's wall as illegals would travel to Scotland instead of Calais in order to enter the rest of the UK. The more the Westminster crowd plead for a "no" vote, the stronger the "yes" support seems to get.

It turns out it was Cameron that blocked a third option, that of greater devolved powers for Scotland whilst remaining a member of the UK. Had this been included, it is unlikely that "yes" for full independence would have gained an overall majority.

I suspect at the time Cameron was confident the outcome would be a "no", and as he didn't feel that a "yes" outcome, he wasn't prepared to allow the third option for greater powers to be included as he felt this would probably get the most support, and would have to go ahead.

Now the "yes" outcome looks credible, the Cameron crowd are in something of a panic, trying to first scare the Scots away from voting "yes", and then making promises of greater devolved powers if they vote "no".

It would appear that Scotland cannot lose, it is merely choosing what form it's victory will take. The only loser can be Parliament in Westminster, who will have it's position on the international stage dented if Scotland go fully independent.

Any promises being made now in the dying days of the campaign should have been made and implemented long ago.

The problem with Westminster is that their priority has always been London and the South East, with "the North" being allowed to fend for itself whilst struggling with the disadvantage of being further away from where most big decisions are made.

A major opportunity was missed in 2012. They could have been staged near Birmingham or Manchester, which would have put a Northern city on the international map. Instead, London got them, despite a serious fear that it's so crowded that transport failures would embarrass the city and the UK.

The Olympics could even have been held in a Scottish city. If they then claimed there were no decent transport links, then who's fault is that!

If Scotland votes "yes", the negotiations may well begin with a Tory-Lib alliance, but they won't end with one

If Scotland vote "no", it would be foolish for any party to backpedal on the promises made given the proximity of the next election, in which a non independent Scotland will play a significant part. The SNP MPs elected will make sure the promises don't get forgotten.

 

[mathsboy1975]

If Scotland votes "yes", the negotiations may well begin with a Tory-Lib alliance, but they won't end with one

But if they vote "yes" then the Labour party will lose a great many future seats in parliament while the Conservatives (who currently only hold one Scottish seat I believe - correct that if I am wrong) end up benefitting from a higher proportion once Scotland no longer takes part in electing a UK government. So although Labour may get in again in the next general election, their chances in elections beyond 2015 will take a serious dent.

 

[dunover]

There is a nasty anti-British/English venom behind some of the rhetoric. Salmond is an unconcealed Anglophobe appealing to the ignorant and the torch-and-pitchfork mob. The vote is disingenuous to say the least. Hundreds of thousands of Scots living in England/Wales/Ulster are excluded from the vote as likely they would have pro-union views yet the same amount of migrant workers from the E-USSR who have been in Scotland for a few years CAN vote.
It was English money that initiated the North Sea Oil industry, and the Scots have taken pro-rata far more from the treasury even account for oil than the rest of us. 45% of Scots work for the state, a colossal burden on any taxes raised. Never mind 'right wing' elements taking over in Scotland, I'd worry about the far-left and the socialist utopia they think will be created. "Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money."
The Royal Mail subsidizes the sparsely populated Scottish area to the tune of 200m a year, and without it a letter would be 97p in Scotland and you would lose your 6-day a week delivery. Tens of thousands of defence jobs in the nuclear bases would move to England, so get ready to pay their benefits and those the money that generates in the local economies. England is nearer almost all their main markets - when we leave the E-USSR we can charge for use of our roads (like other Europeans do to us now) or even before we leave it. Due to the above geographical reasons manufacturing will not easily be tempted there. The dismal grey cold wet damp climate will not change - Scotland isn't sparsely populated for nothing!
So, if the Scots fall for Salmond's wish to become remembered as the 'great liberator' I think they will regret it and become a debt-ridden basket-case economy like Greece. They will be beholden still to English, and possibly German banks.
The fish are depleted, England has discovered 350m+ barrels off oil south of the Falkland Islands and the move is away from fossil fuels anyway. Let's see how Scotland can raise enough taxes to employ 45% of their working people on Scotch Whisky and depleting oil alone.
Good luck with it.........
One good thing - if they vote 'yes' we will likely be spared any future Labour borrow-and-bust governments in England..

P.S. But close or not, they won't. Bank on it.

 

[vinylweatherman]

But if they vote "yes" then the Labour party will lose a great many future seats in parliament while the Conservatives (who currently only hold one Scottish seat I believe - correct that if I am wrong) end up benefitting from a higher proportion once Scotland no longer takes part in electing a UK government. So although Labour may get in again in the next general election, their chances in elections beyond 2015 will take a serious dent.

The "yes" vote would have been less likely had Westminster not inflicted "one size fits all" policies that negatively affected parts of Scotland much more than regions of England.

The main problem with a yes vote is that it means several months, if not years, of negotiations and adjustments. A no vote would mean that negotiations on further powers for the Scottish parliament can take place during a stable political and currency union.

It seems to me that Cameron made a serious error by assuming that there was no real danger of a yes vote for full independence, and so didn't see the need to negotiate more devolved powers to the Scottish parliament. He then made matters worse by appearing "desperate" when there was a serious prospect of a yes vote, scare stories about a border with guards being hurriedly constructed, complete with passport controls, collapse of the economy, and all the oil being gone soon. He even (allegedly) turned on the tears - bet that was fake, a PR stunt orchestrated by his team.

There is no guarantee either that a yes vote will mean disaster. The Scottish parliament just needs to avoid acting in haste with it's new powers, and to realise that what they say can spook the global markets if they are not careful.

If a no vote, there will be a bunch of SNP MPs at Westminster that will make sure the panicked promises are kept. If they get this wrong, there will be another referendum in due course, and there will be no second chances for Westminster to fool the Scottish voters with false promises.

For the Scots, they know that there will NEVER be a parliament at Westminster that puts Scotland first, their elected MPs will always be a minority group that is forced to do deals with one or other of the major parties, and the only time they will have real influence is in a "hung parliament" situation like we currently have (which is probably why this referendum got the go ahead to start with).

 

[maxd]

A no vote would mean that negotiations on further powers for the Scottish parliament can take place during a stable political and currency union.

I'll bet dollars to a hole in your socks that said "further powers" will not come smoothly. If Westminister can wiggle out of the so-called pledges they most certainly will.

Either way it goes today I think it's safe to predict that Scotland does not have smooth sailing ahead. Not to mention post-referendum backlash which won't be pretty either.

There is a nasty anti-British/English venom behind some of the rhetoric. ....

Not to mention a fair bit of nasty anti-Scots feelings south of the border eh? I reckon you've just illustrated a few of the reasons why at least some Scots are mulling or have cast a "Yes" vote today. No offense intended, just sayin'.

We're not exactly talking about a happy relationship here so ... there's a good bit of bile on both sides I should think. As someone said recently it's a 300 year old arranged marriage, not all flowers and kisses.

 

[Balthazar]

the socialist utopia they think will be created.

That sounds (un)surprisingly familiar. No wonder our own separatists (mostly left-wing nationalists) are openly and publicly supporting the Yes in Scotland.

 

[maxd]

Well, that was a thing. Cameron seems to be off to a great start wth some furious back-peddling on those devolution pledges.

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

Well, that was a thing. Cameron seems to be off to a great start wth some furious back-peddling on those devolution pledges.

Seemed to have promised to deliver them from what I gathered from his speech outside number 10 this morning.

Now I don't believe every politician's promises, but if they don't deliver them I'm 101% sure the Scots will make enough noise to make it known they were lied to. Salmond certainly will, I bet he'll have Dave on speed-dial over the next 6 months.

 

[petro]

Just a follow up

Scotland lost it's bid to become independent with only 45% of the vote.

Here is an RT America report about it:

 

[Luca Jocovic]

well if they could be just fine as a country then why not

*snip*

 

[jetset]

I thought for a moment I was caught in a time warp....this is a 2012 thread that was resurrected in 2014 and again now.

And yet....the Scots are again pondering the best course following England's Brexit vote, so the issue is still relevant!

Edited to add that the links above are to poker websites, so this is cloaked spamming.

 

[maxd]

... the links above are to poker websites, so this is cloaked spamming.

Yeah, , snipped and the author banned.