[Coco with marshmallows]

So, September will see the referendum on Scottish independence being held, and already the news (up here at least) is filling up with articles/pieces about what will happen post-referendum.

Now, i know there aren't many Scottish members kicking about any more (in fact, are there any others at all these days?) so what i'm actually wondering is how this referendum is being represented (if at all) on the national (UK) and international (rest of the world) scene?

Do any English/Welsh/Northern Irish/Manx members have an opinion? Willing to share?

How has it been presented to you? (HAS it been mentioned at all?)

Similarly, rest of the world - Do you even care? Are you curious about the case for/against? (i'll do my best to provide info from both sides if you wish, i'm not yet entirely convinced either way tbth)

So yeah...... I open the floor to my fellow forumites

[HiddenOne]

So what's the deal? I heard on the BBC something about it in passing, like maybe UK would take away the pound from Scotland and thereby kick you in the financial balls for rocking the boat

Please feel free to educate my unenlightened American brain, as other than that vague reference in passing, I have heard nothing about it, although I am admittedly not that into following world news as a past time.

[tiam]

I know bugger all about politics but the impression im getting from the media is Scotland making the rod for their own back by technically leaving the EU and then trying to rejoin which will put you at the back of the que plus wanting to leave England yet keep the pound as your currency.

Sounds a bit dicey in a time of economic uncertainty but as I said Im only going off the media portrayal from the small amount of it ive seen.

Is it a good thing up north Coco?

[Studious Lock]

Well on the one hand I love (im english) being so close to scotland wales and NI so i would be gutted if travel to your beautiful country was made in any way harder. Also sharing the oil output would not be great for either of us... (you can bet that though its almost all in scottish waters we will get a decent amount of it)

On the other hand i fucking hate cameron and i reckon it will piss him and the rest of the tories/ actually all english politicians off so go ahead.

[Messremb]

My English viewpoint? What the **** are you on about Scotland? Really? You want to go back to being a isolated, sparsely populated nation of hillbillys with a few big towns growling over the walls at everyone next year?

Well on the plus side you'll lose national NHS funding and development, trains and planes will be a lot more complicated and you'll have to think up a currency of your own*. Conversely on the down side you'll have your own politicians in charge of making their own financial decisions (Holyrood being 7x over budget being a prime example) you'll have to learn to take the massive hit to the economic output of a country no longer integrated with London with all the financial stability that implies, and you'll no doubt go back to being the French bum-boy.

When you do introduce your own currency you'll have the natural tendency of shopkeepers everywhere to round everything up. Oh and posting anything across the border will become a lot more expensive because Royal Mail will not be obliged to do anything for Scotland and if it chooses to it'll class cross-border mail as international pricing. Say goodbye to your post offices too as they are heavily subsidised by English ones. And jobseekers and other benefits. Those nice nuclear subs. How do you import electricity? Oh yes, via the English Channel. The BBC & C4 too, being tax-payer funded.

I read somewhere that the North Sea fields are economically viable till maybe 2020-25, presumably there is a plan to replace what would provide a big chunk of Scotlands income by then?



So what are the plus points broadcast internally? I really don't see any that are worth the hassle and disruption that it'll cause. Ahh, I've just figured it out - an independent Scotland can vote for us in Eurovision thus potentially inflicting that horror on our shores. Truly a cunning plan.


I've always like the wording of the Act of Union (1707):

Quote

That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof and forever after be United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all Flags Banners Standards and Ensigns both at Sea and Land

I'm totally against a separate Scotland come the referendum if you hadn't noticed. Why? Because the whole thing seems to be an egotistical exercise with little thought behind it. They really think they can go straight to full independence and have a hope in hell of not creating a major balls-up? Look at Wales. Devolution is handing them pretty much everything on a silver plate whilst maintaining every benefit of being part of the UK.

Broadcasting here is pretty much identical to what you get in Scotland baring the local content. So every time Scotland makes another strange statement it is torn apart and Cameron etc are blatantly going to try every trick in the book to force a no vote. We know they're slimy sods but we agree with them this time - theres a first time for anything!

I've got good friends who are Scottish so don't think me anti-Scots independence it just seems to be a really quite daft plan how they're going about it from this far South. Sorry for the mini-rant Coco





*I'm ignoring the blasted Scottish notes that cash machines love to dispense to the unwary Englishman because NI do it too - when I was over not long ago we spent half our trip trying to get rid of the fake cash one unwary member of our group had managed to get dispensed in a way that didn't feel like a total waste. So beer mainly. It's a ploy to get us to buy more because we know no other place will accept the stuff. Scotland only catches you once, the mental scarring from trying to spend the £80 you got out of a cash machine in Moffat (tourist tat central) before heading South stays with you for life. And the singing potter, truly a horror for the poor visitor.

[Imperial Historian]

Scotland leaving the UK scares the crap out of me, as it significantly increases the chance we'll be stuck with the Tories for a long time to come.

News I'm seeing seems to suggest the SNP haven't thought a lot of things through, but honestly I can't really see the advantages of leaving the UK (in the same way I can't see the advantages of leaving the EU, its odd many of the arguments for keeping Scotland in the UK, and the UK in the EU are the same, but Cameron is for one but against the other, makes no sense to me). Is there any strong sentiment in Scotland for leaving the UK? Getting rid of the queen I can see being a good thing (I presume you are doing that?), but devolution seems to give you most of the benefits, with none of the downsides of independence.

[Tiste Simeon]

From what I can tell (and I have been trying to follow this with some interest) the main argument from the SNP seems to be "vote yes if you're patriotic and a true Scot". Not seen any real arguments from the yes side and it mainly revolves around appealing to a sense of national pride.

Furthermore every time someone comes out with a negative reason for independence, the official response seems to be "well that's preposterous" Like when the EU said that they couldn't just assume they would be able to join, all they said was "well don't be stupid."

There doesn't seem to be any compelling arguments with solid plans for the future from the yes camp and it all seems founded on vague generalities and half thought out assumptions (I.e."of course we will stay in the EU. Have we checked with the EU? Why would we do that?" Or "pa course we will keep the pound. What do you mean it might not be that simple?")

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING I have seen from the Yes side has even made me think ONCE that it is a good idea, even in a small way. It seems to me like the yes side are petty and are just basing it all on "We hate the English, have always hated the English so therefore we should be independent." Alex Salmon has even lowered the voting age in Scotland just to try and work with the angry youth, probably hoping that all the things they are angry about can be laid at England's feet so he can persuade them to vote his way.

I think if they gain independence, it will be the worst thing that could possibly happen to the country and they will regret it both financially and as from a point of belonging to something bigger (either the UK, the EU or whatever.

And I don't think the oil will bring them as much money as they all seem to think it will...

[Morgoth]

That's an incredibly biased and, well, rather ill informed view of the arguments for Scottish independence. Though I think Scotland will be better of voting no in the referendum, I certainly understand many of the arguments to vote yes. That's especially true of the current political climate, with Scotland being ruled by a political party that received a rather miniscule amount of the Scottish vote.

[Coco with marshmallows]

This is kind of what i'm wanting to find out though - how is it being presented elsewhere?

Regarding Messremb's points (well, some of them, and bear in mind i don't know the exact details here):

Trains and planes - they're run by private companies, can charge what they like regardless (and i'm sure they will) At present it's often cheaper for me to fly from Manchester than Glasgow though, depending on destination.

Having said that, the CEO of BA came out this week stating he thinks independence will benefit BA, as Scotland are planning on scrapping airport tax, so he expects they'll get busier in Scotland.

Oil - north sea fields are predicted to run dry by about 2050 (thirty years or so) As I understand it, ownership of oil reserves are based on nearest inhabited land mass (I believe the limit is 300 miles?) under international treaty. Regarding the fact that they run dry by 2050, there is a plan to create a sovereign wealth fund (similar to Norway's) in the intervening period with some of the tax received. A (fairly low) figure of £1 billion per year to the wealth fund has been mooted.

Relatedly, the west coast fields - which have been prevented from being explored due to the stationing of Trident on the Clyde - would be opened up for extraction. - Which ties into your other point - they don't WANT the subs up here. The SNP don't want Scotland to be an armed nuclear nation.

Royal Mail isn't obliged to do anything for anyone anymore - it was privatised last year (At a ludicrously low price, and they've just announced price increases anyway), so again, expect them to utilise any excuse to bump the prices up.

The voting age - actually agree with Tiste, lowering it was weird. Having said that, the justification that "at 16 you can join the army, but you aren't allowed to vote" is a fair one in some ways, but personally i'd have been more in favour with increasing the recruiting age to 18 rather than dropping the voting age.

on a personal note - I hate Salmond, find him to be a bit of a tit. But i'll give him his due - he was elected on the basis that he'd get a referendum, and that's what he's doing - so fair play for being a politician that keeps his electoral promise (these days, that's a rarity). Also, he's an excellent debater. Beyond that, yes. a total tit.

[Grief]

Scot here. I'm not in favour of independence, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here, because I do find some of the views in this thread pretty depressing.

For people saying there is no reason for Scottish independence, or no possible benefits, I would like to point out this map:



For anyone not from the UK, the map shows the constituency results from the last general election. As part of the UK, Scotland is ultimately governed and represented by the Conservative party, shown here by the colour blue, who won 1 seat out of a possible 59 in Scotland (in a coalition with the darker yellow Liberal party, who won 11 seats, in a showing stronger than they are likely to achieve again for a considerable time). For reference, the red party (Labour) won 41 seats.

This isn't some abnormally bad showing by the Conservatives either. What Morgoth calls the "current political climate" is not a unique, or even rare, occurrence - it is not at all uncommon for Scotland to be ruled by a government that it does not remotely want, and that it never would have elected. There is also a perception that these governments care very little about representing Scottish interests, given that they received next to no votes from Scotland, and are not likely to any time in the near future either.

That is, we hate the tories, we've always hated the tories, therefore maybe we shouldn't regularly subjected to their governance.

I'm not in support of independence for a variety of reasons. But I do think that it is mistaken to portray it as something purely irrational, or purely bigoted (not helped by politicians happy to encourage people to vote "yes" for any reason whatsoever), and for which there are no reasonable justifications.

As a tangential, and not entirely serious point in regards to the EU, I wonder if anyone has suggested that England should re-apply? Unless that argument for Scotland doing so is simply that they're the ones instigating the break, then I'm not sure why it wouldn't equally apply to both parties. Practically of course, and much like the oil money (as SL mentions), being bigger is simply in England's favour.

Also:

Messremb, on 01 March 2014 - 01:19 AM, said:

Look at Wales. Devolution is handing them pretty much everything on a silver plate whilst maintaining every benefit of being part of the UK.

Anecdotally, the majority of people that I spoke to were favouring the devolution option of the referendum, and I'm pretty confident it would have won, until it was taken out for political reasons that had nothing to do with best representing the people.

[Grief]

I Am Brian Blessed Not Brent Weeks, on 01 March 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

The voting age - actually agree with Tiste, lowering it was weird. Having said that, the justification that "at 16 you can join the army, but you aren't allowed to vote" is a fair one in some ways, but personally i'd have been more in favour with increasing the recruiting age to 18 rather than dropping the voting age.

Agreed, and I don't think it'll help Salmond get a "yes" vote anyway.

I Am Brian Blessed Not Brent Weeks, on 01 March 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

But i'll give him his due - he was elected on the basis that he'd get a referendum, and that's what he's doing - so fair play for being a politician that keeps his electoral promise (these days, that's a rarity).

Honestly, I'm not even sure the extent to which the independence platform was the reason he was elected. I know quite a few people who are against independence but voted SNP because they felt other SNP policies best represent their interests. Going back to my point about representation, parties like Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives don't necessarily do this, because of their allegiance to the larger party.

[Tsundoku]

The Act of Union was in (Googles) 1707, correct? That's over 300 years to build a bridge and get over yourselves.

In all countries sometimes the outer areas get fucked over because the priorities are with the more densely-populated areas. That's life.

If we went with the "regional vote" idea, then Victoria wouldn't be a part of Australia most of the time, and Queensland the rest of it. (Actually, come to think of it that wouldn't be so bad after all ...

To answer the original question though: this is getting two-fifths of fuck-all coverage here in Oz. I didn't even know it was on until I read this thread, and I like to flatter myself sometimes as knowing a little bit of what's going on in the outside world.

[Fid]

A yes vote would make Westminster a rather sparse place for both Labour and (to a lesser extent) Lib Dems. I suspect Millibean is shitting himself far more than Cameroon - though he will take the blame for losing the union. If there is a yes vote, it will be followed 6 months later by general election - where Scottish MPs will be elected presumably until independence kicks in a year later. If thatis the scenario AND Labour were to get in even with a minority government watch the scrambling to try and limit the impact of 50 seats just disappearing - I can see Labour attempting to redefine a lot of boundaries in their favour - which will almost certainly get blocked.

Will keep political bloggers frothing for some time

[QuickTidal]

As a Canadian (with Scottish grandparents and other relatives on my mum's side ), I understand Scotland's ire, and Morgoth's info was interesting in that regard, and I really do feel the biggest of those things is the fact that no one in Scotland is apparently being governed by someone they want. And that would suck. And I'd rail against it too.

Sidenote: When I visited Scotland, regular English pound notes were treated with snarls of derision in any store I used them in to spend...seriously, I bought a bag of McCoy's at the corner shop and the woman nearly shouted at me. Bank of Scotland notes were quickly rounded up to use instead.

I'll give the best comparison I can for why I agree. Back in the 1990's, as a "cost saving measure" put in place by one of the most hated assholes to EVER sit in the seat of Premier of our province, this yahoo decided to amalgamate the city of Toronto with its surrounding boroughs and municipalities. This united Toronto with 5 surrounding areas widening the boundaries by huge margins and creating what was colloquially called "the megacity". It was never considered a good idea, but the teeth in it didn't show until the next election...when SIX totally different places that had grown up with their own cultures, and values, and ideas about being "run" by government...tried to agree on ONE person to be mayor. And it was a clusterfuck. It's also the reason that Rob Ford (crack smoker, fat idiot, Chris Farley Ghost extraordinaire) currently is our mayor. Why? It's a very similar thing to what Morgoth's map showed. If you look at a political map of the megacity in ANY given election, Old Metropolitan Toronto is always uniformly one colour. ALWAYS. Yet the surrounding places that used to be on their own are bigger, and denser...so what used to be Etobicoke and Scarborough now vote for the person who they want to lead them...and that is Rob effing Ford...that has also been anyone who has led this city since 1998...because the outlying boroughs are dense enough to decide that...meanwhile no one in metropolitan Toronto has uniformly approved of a mayor in more than ten years. We get stuck with what the 'burbs' want...which sucks, but unless we can magically BE more people, it's not going to happen...and current climate says that if Ford runs again he will get elected...like I don't even...sigh.

Spoiler

Here is the map of the last election. The purple area is the original Toronto...the blue is all the outlying areas that were added in '98.

So yeah, I get Scotland's desire to leave. It should be done circumspectly though if it's done at all, but it's hard not to sympathize.

Question: Coco, How feasible is it for them to separate? Or do all the things that have been mentioned already make it pretty impossible, or a genuinely bad idea?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 02 March 2014 - 02:25 PM

[Shinrei]

I Am Brian Blessed Not Brent Weeks, on 01 March 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

Regarding Messremb's points (well, some of them, and bear in mind i don't know the exact details here):

You did that on purpose, didn't you.

I'll have you know, I knew nothing of this until I saw this thread. If it has even blipped on the radar of Japanese media, I missed it. I actually doubt anything has been reported about it in Japan though, except as maybe some obscure newspaper backstory.

So, other than sharing that info, I'm too ignorant to make any comment other than FREEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!

[Tiste Simeon]

Morgoth, on 01 March 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

That's an incredibly biased and, well, rather ill informed view of the arguments for Scottish independence. Though I think Scotland will be better of voting no in the referendum, I certainly understand many of the arguments to vote yes. That's especially true of the current political climate, with Scotland being ruled by a political party that received a rather miniscule amount of the Scottish vote.

Was that directed at me? Cos I am basing my views on what we are seeing. I have yet to see any good, practical reasons for voting yes from anyone (The Airport thing seems to benefit air companies, not the country or its residents in any major day-to-day way...)

And as to the bit about their responses to what people in Europe are saying, such as the EU guy, that was accurate... The only response was "That is preposterous!" No reason why it was preposterous. No counter arguments or anything else.

Something I thought of as well: This decision affects the whole of the UK, we should get a vote too, right?

[stone monkey]

There are a bunch of issues here and also a great big elephant in the room. So let's have at it:

I personally think it would be one of the worst ideas in the history of bad ideas for Scotland to leave the Union, but it's easy to see why they might want to.

From Scotland's economic and political pov, leaving the Union means they go from being part of one of the bigger fishes in the EU pond to being a very small fish in the same pond (and that's only if they can get back into the EU in a hurry which, for reasons I'll state below, is far from guaranteed). For reference, the Scottish population is only 5.2 million - there are more people living in the North of England. You might also want to witness the way the UK has kicked the Rep. of Ireland about with respect to the Schengen Treaty.

Scotland also receives, per capita, greater government investment than the rest of the UK; that would disappear. Arguably the Scottish attitude to the Union mirrors the general UK attitude to the EU i.e. we've done extremely well out of it (the UK was the poorest member of the EU when it joined in 1974) but, paradoxically, the majority of our population thinks it's a bad thing.

The prospective currency issue is a big problem. In the unlikely event that the Scots would be allowed to keep using Sterling, they'd essentially lose control of their monetary policy. Which is not a good look on a nation that wants to be taken seriously abroad. And the Scottish population is, I think, as leery about the Euro as the rest of the UK (with about as good a reason - that is, none).

Of course, the elephant in the room is the EU. They have absolutely no good reason to encourage a new state to break off from a pre-existing state within their sphere, it opens up such a huge can of worms for the other EU members; Catalunya, the Basques, French v, Flemish Belgium, to name but a few. The word we're looking for here is Balkanization, and no one wants to be part of that kind of mess if they're sane. A provisionally independent Scotland is unlikely to be able to extract any promises from them.

So yeah, I'm pretty sure it's bad news all round for the Scots.

One of the things mentioned is the fact that Scotland is being ruled from Westminster by, currently, a party most of Scots didn't vote for. There's a a corollary to this point, and that's the infamous West Lothian Question. Scotland currently, through its MPs sitting in Westminster, has a big say over questions, and policy, that actually don't concern the Scots at all. It works both ways, you see. Scotland's departure from the Union would consign the rest of us to a permanent Tory majority, which would be a disaster of biblical proportions for the remnant UK imo.

Let's just say, I'm not a fan of the idea.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 02 March 2014 - 05:07 PM

[D'iversify]

The idea of a permanent Tory majority is frightening but I personally don't think it would last particularly long. British politics has since the days of the Tories and the Whigs been largely binary. I think a Tory party with such a majority would lose votes to those favouring an alternative. Moreover, the characteristic infighting that has existed between Tory social traditionalists and reformers, between economic protectionists and freemarketers, would I think in such a situation lead to definite schisms in the party. UKIP is already one symptom that many of the traditionalist/protectionist wing are not happy with the direction the party has gone under Cameron (Cameron arguably combines Thatcher's freemarketism and Blair's social reformism and is therefore quite divergent in his views from the values of the 'old Tory' party that still dominates many of the backbenches). So I don't think Scotland is all that's standing in the way of a permanent Tory majority, indeed, secession could be fatal in the long-term for Conservative Party unity even if it would have great short-term bonuses.

[Illuyankas]

Last time Labour won an election they won by more than the number of seats the whole of Scotland would have provided. The Tories are not on track to make that any less likely by next year, though I suppose the rightward shunt of political movement could accelerate even more.

Personally Scotland should give up all hope of ever being its own country again and live forever as a satellite state of the Great British Empire as our serfs with zero autonomy of their own because we know better than what they as a nation may or may not want, but that's just me*










*really though they should get out while they still can

[Illuyankas]

MASSIVE POST INBOUND, thanks to outforum person 'Reveilled':

Quote

"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:

• Held like right the fuck now
  
• Held like whenever
  
• One Question: Should Scotland leave the United Kingdom and become an independent state?
  
• Everyone in the UK gets to vote
  
• If Orkney and Shetland vote no, they stay in the UK
  
• Any referendum is to be purely advisory and Westminister must vote to allow Scotland its independence
  
• No referendum, because referendums are illegal
  
• No referendum, because referendums are undemocratic

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!

This post from here is from 2012 so it's missing some stuff but I haven't finished catching up with the thread, hopefully you guys might find it also interesting!

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 02 March 2014 - 06:11 PM