Should Scotland have independence?

[richie]

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.

 

[schmooze]

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!

 

[paul7388]

Old post. But ill answer anyway since its a hot topic up here.

From the look of things independence seems to have a good chance now but guess it could go either way in next few days. MY answer to it is easy tho.

NO NO NO

 

[NetEntFollower]

But I just can't see how Scotland can afford independence. .

This is the right thing to ask.

Another thing is - why would you want to? You'd sacrifice years of turmoil for what? Does your government and its people want serious reform?

 

[schmooze]

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.

 

[schmooze]

Does your government and its people want serious reform?

Also a good question. What reformations does Scotland want?

 

[paul7388]

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.

 

[vinylweatherman]

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

 

[jetset]

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.

 

[maphesto]

I am not into UK politics but remember that some years after Sweden let Norway go the Norwegians found some oil...

 

[schmooze]

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?

 

[vinylweatherman]

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.

 

[jetset]

I am not into UK politics but remember that some years after Sweden let Norway go the Norwegians found some oil...

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.

 

[schmooze]

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!!!

 

[schmooze]

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???!!!

 

[petro]

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:

 

[chayton]

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.

 

[maxd]

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

No "Thanks" button here but ... thank you for that. Interesting stuff.

 

[PNEFOREVER2]

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.

 

[paul7388]

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.

 

[maxd]

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.

 

[KasinoKing]

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?

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

 

[petro]

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.

 

[maxd]

... 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).

 

[paul7388]

Why is it Scotland's oil?

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.

 

[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.