[Obdigore]

I Am Brian Blessed Not Brent Weeks, on 28 February 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

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

I skimmed this thread and was involved in a much longer and more detailed thread elsewhere, but as far as I can tell the Scottish Independence Movement is based around two things

1) The people we vote for don't win national elections
and
2) We want all that Oil Money.

The first is 'loldemocracy' and happens in nations everywhere. It isn't really a 'valid' complaint anywhere, since Democracies are generally made up of people losing the vote, and the difference between 'rural' and 'urban' exists in most voting places.

The Oil Money is understandable, although I don't believe Scotland itself is large enough, strong enough, or, well, anything enough to maintain control over those resources if they aren't part of the UK. I'm also shocked they are willing to let the UK control the value of the currency they want to use, and the assumption that they will just auto-join the UN.

Frankly, its a poor move socially and economically, its a move based of feelings 'FREEDOMS!' and not facts. I believe Scotland receives the most money per capita compared to what they pay in and that is going to go away. As has been noted in thread, they will lose access to NHS, Royal Mail, those shipyards will close down, and they wont really have any kind of military to protect them. They will most likely be put at the end of the line to join the UN.

The question is, what will they gain? FREEDOM!!!!!!. That is it. I see literally nothing in it for the Scottish person beyond 'we get to elect our own government, despite the fact that we as a nation are too small/unimportant to really do much of anything worthwhile, while losing all the money that comes in from the rest of the UK.' I assume it would also cause massive travel/citizenship issues for Scots elsewhere in the UK and in Europe. Would their UK passports be good? Would they be nullified and have to get Scottish ones?

-Opinion from a 'Murrican.

This post has been edited by Possibly Brent Weeks: 03 March 2014 - 04:19 AM

[Tarthenal Theloman Toblakai]

I haven't seen the Scottish Independance much in the news but I only tend to read on Science and Technology so that may be my fault. I have gone out and read details though and do understand each side of the coin. Being British and proud I really don't want to lose Scotland, I am a quarter Scottish on my mums side and think it would be an injustice to the work done in the past to make ties to lose it all again. I think that Scotland would be losing a lot more than the remainder of the UK and they really should think it through carefully. They should lose the Pound, why the hell not, they can't expect to become independant and keep some advantages, I think becoming independant would be a huge ice cold bucket of water in the face and they would regret it. I know that Cameron (I hate politics in general but suppose it is a necessary evil) doesn't want independance either, I don't think many England, Wales and Northern Ireland citizens want independance to go through either? I have only really heard the opinions of politicians and not much on the citizen POV.

VOTE NO SCOTLAND WE LOVE YOU!

[Morgoth]

Possibly Brent Weeks, on 03 March 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

I Am Brian Blessed Not Brent Weeks, on 28 February 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

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

The Oil Money is understandable, although I don't believe Scotland itself is large enough, strong enough, or, well, anything enough to maintain control over those resources if they aren't part of the UK. I'm also shocked they are willing to let the UK control the value of the currency they want to use, and the assumption that they will just auto-join the UN.

If only there existed some sort of presedence for a country of roughly 5 million people retaining full controll of their oil wealth.

[Obdigore]

Morgoth, on 03 March 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Possibly Brent Weeks, on 03 March 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

I Am Brian Blessed Not Brent Weeks, on 28 February 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

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

The Oil Money is understandable, although I don't believe Scotland itself is large enough, strong enough, or, well, anything enough to maintain control over those resources if they aren't part of the UK. I'm also shocked they are willing to let the UK control the value of the currency they want to use, and the assumption that they will just auto-join the UN.

If only there existed some sort of presedence for a country of roughly 5 million people retaining full controll of their oil wealth.

/yawn. Your out of context quoting is well known. Why should the UK give up that valuable resource? Hell why would the UK let the Scots use their currency? I'm also baffled that the Scots think they are entitled to a portion of the UK military fleet.

[D'iversify]

Possibly Brent Weeks, on 03 March 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

I Am Brian Blessed Not Brent Weeks, on 28 February 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

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

1) The people we vote for don't win national elections.

The first is 'loldemocracy' and happens in nations everywhere. It isn't really a 'valid' complaint anywhere, since Democracies are generally made up of people losing the vote, and the difference between 'rural' and 'urban' exists in most voting places.

This is true to a certain extent, but it is also true that there is a difference between the situation in the states of, say, those secession petition movements after the 2012 Obama win, and the situation between England and Scotland. The US has a federal structure in which states have a certain degree of autonomy, but the Presidency, House and Senate are government bodies with powers that override states' rights - they are elected by the peoples of states but their powers supervene over local autonomy (there is no 'right of secession'). Scotland by contrast was incorporated into the United Kingdom as a de jure equal partner - two separate parliamentary votes were held, one in Westminster in 1706 and one in Edinburgh in 1707. Also recall that the monarch at the time was Queen Anne, a member of the originally Scottish House of Stuart. The unity of England and Scotland therefore originates in the unification of two previously independent parliaments, which followed the prior union of the monarchy in 1603, which was based on the shared descent of the English and Scottish royal families. Whilst the unity of the British monarchy arguably cannot be undone due to it being a union of the person the monarch (barring Scottish Republicanism), the union of the parliaments arguably can and to a certain degree has been with the re-establishment of an independent Scottish parliament. Moreover, there is also the historical precedent of the Irish portion of the British parliament being split off from the British through the Home Rule Act of 1920. So unlike the US there is established precedent for the ties of union to be unbound in the United Kingdom.

[Morgoth]

Possibly Brent Weeks, on 03 March 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 03 March 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Possibly Brent Weeks, on 03 March 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

I Am Brian Blessed Not Brent Weeks, on 28 February 2014 - 10:06 PM, said:

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

The Oil Money is understandable, although I don't believe Scotland itself is large enough, strong enough, or, well, anything enough to maintain control over those resources if they aren't part of the UK. I'm also shocked they are willing to let the UK control the value of the currency they want to use, and the assumption that they will just auto-join the UN.

If only there existed some sort of presedence for a country of roughly 5 million people retaining full controll of their oil wealth.

/yawn. Your out of context quoting is well known. Why should the UK give up that valuable resource? Hell why would the UK let the Scots use their currency? I'm also baffled that the Scots think they are entitled to a portion of the UK military fleet.

If you say so.

It would be nice though, as you are accusing me of taking your quote out of context, to explain why you consider that to be so.

England has been perfectly clear that they will respect the result of the vote for independence. Considering their long time policy in this regard, not to mention the Falklands issue, that’s hardly something one can reasonably doubt to be true. Are you claiming that England will not respect the Law of the Sea when it comes to calculating Scotland’s territorial waters and exclusive economic zone? Is that your argument?

You were saying that Scotland would be too small and insignificant to maintain control of their territorial waters. Yet Norway, a country of about the same population managed perfectly well to keep control of ours. The comparison seemed apt, especially as Norway is geographically and historically one of England’s closest neighbors. Now, as was the case with their relationships to Norway, England has no reasonable alternative other than a strict adherence to international law when it comes to Scottish independence. I’m surprised you disputing that, and would enjoy seeing your arguments.

[Macros]

I hear a good bit about this as I work mainly in Scotland.
of all the Scottish people I deal with and have talked to about it, about 70% will be voting against independence.
they primarily don't believe Salmonds promises and are extremely sceptical of the numbers the SNP are throwing around.

The biggest voices of support I have to listen to are from my colleagues from home, all those wonderful wannabe rebels who shout 'up the ra' when they're drunk. When I pointed to the loss of the MoDs presence they scoffed and said 'sure they're all English anyway' completely ignoring the fact that the bases need supported, fed and the contracts they hand out are phenomenonal, and being defense are blanks cheques, so you can run over budget all you want (point and case the aircraft carrier being built at Rosyth dockyards that's currently 3 years behind schedule and approximately double its budget (billions)
for those who say losing trident will free up more oil and gas, gotsa get past the environmentalists these days so close to the coast, see Irelands trouble in exploiting their gas off the coast of Sligo. Also, you lose the MoD you pull tens of thousands of personnel as well, I can think of 3 RAF bases that I've worked at alone, two massive naval yards and several other facilities, the money thrown at contractors (quite a lot based locally) is ridiculous.

there's no simple yes or no for will it benefit, there's too much being glossed over by both sides imo and it will be a wholly uninformed vote by a majority of voters, which is a shame because if they were more clued in devolution would have been their best shout for the Scottish people (imo)

my focus was sort of on the government spending because all our work is governmental projects so I see daily the money that gets fired around, but on a corporate side BP for a start have said they'll be shifting head quarters and non essentials to England, could be interesting if a few others pull the same statements out of their ass to try and scare people

[Coco with marshmallows]

Macros, on 03 March 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

my focus was sort of on the government spending because all our work is governmental projects so I see daily the money that gets fired around, but on a corporate side BP for a start have said they'll be shifting head quarters and non essentials to England, could be interesting if a few others pull the same statements out of their ass to try and scare people

Interesting. Hadn't heard that - you got a link?

All I'd heard was the usual - uncertainty about currency, etc, not that they were planning to move.

[Cougar]

As Macros is fond of pointing out (most frequently at about 3 am on school nights), my mother is Scottish and my Dad is English, making me a 'rotund half and half ginger bastard' or some variation thereof, which, in a roundabout way of saying it, is to make clear that the issue of Scottish independence is a personal, as well as practical issue for me. I'll say from the outset that I'm against independence for many reasons, but largely because I feel British and I'd like it to stay the way it's always been without my identity becoming any more complicated.

However, since the question was really about how it's being presented or how it appears from the outside I've a couple of observations to make from Manchester, where I primarily associate with (and thus discuss this topic) with a group largely composed of academic historians. So, hardly representative of general opinion.

1. The independence debate is being dealt with south of the border as primarily a question of benefit, which seems to mean economic benefit. To me that's an odd argument around which to organise the debate. A good number of my friends are Irish historians and, as we were discussing the other day, in the short term Irish independence didn't necessarily (it's very complicated) mean better economic conditions for the population. However, I'd argue votes for independence have to be about more than just short term economic benefits. I'm dubious about the Scots' claims to oil wealth and I don't trust Salmond not to revert to a neo-con, market subordinated attitude to the poor (or even averagely wealthy) once the SNP gain power.

2. On the other hand, I'm hugely suspicious of nationalist movements and, if the reason you'd vote for independence is based on Poor wee Charlie at Culloden, tartan short bread box, pipes and heady beer, haggis and Burns night kind of nationalism, or just on hating the English in a generalised sense then you can fuck off and die in a ditch (after you've listened to this):
http://www.youtube.c...uxL8&feature=kp
On the other hand, when the rest of the British try to insist we're Better off Together they keep harping on about the fucking empire, because, apparently that was an episode we can all be so overwhelmingly and unproblematically proud of. Sort of: "don't worry about the fact that we had to kill a few million fuzzy-wuzzys, the important thing is that we were so much better at it together. Haven't you seen Zulu?" The funny thing is that, as far as the presentation of the debate goes, there's been very little of this in the news, it's primarily devoted to the pound, pensions and the EU. Which brings me to point three:

3. Salmond/the SNP, so far, is/are either being very clever or very stupid. He, by and large, keeps the debate away from deep analysis of the issues. For example: Mark Carney (a Hiberno-Canuk) is asked to pronounce on the pound, what he says doesn't suit the SNP's viewpoint and it's Westminster bullying. Osborne/Balls pronounce on currency union and it goes against the SNP and once again it's bullying Westminster lies, typical English etc. Gordon Brown questions the SNPs white paper and their provision for pensions and Nicola Sturgeon ignores the points and suggests he shouldn't be trusted, he's a PM who let us down and part of the Westminster mafia who have always bullied the Scots. Barroso says Scotland will struggle to join the EU, something the SNP asked for clarification on, and all of a sudden he's not fit to pronounce on the subject. The point being that the SNP are constantly avoiding any discussion on serious aspects of the debate. It's perhaps that they know how thin their grasp on this process is.

The impression I get is that there is a gap, between points two and three, there is nothing to fill that gap between short-term economic pragmatism and airey-fairey bullshitty nationalism. What are the long term benefits for Scotland and the Scots? Is there a significant enough cultural and social difference between the Scots and the English (apologies to Wales and NornIron, but the debate is hardly about them) that, in the long term there will be a benefit to total self governance that is in excess of devo-max? I'm not too sure.

[Macros]

Another one brought up at tea time this morning by some man who decided Scotland could make a fortune selling off all the stuff the British military leave behind.
cause that shits all just going to be abandoned and not relocated to England at all....

agree with the large ginger one, whilst its technically none of my.business I think the SNP are definitely taking too much for granted that it will all go their way and burying the other potential problems in a haze of 'lying filthy english'

@coco, it was on the radio and in one of the papers before Christmas, I'll see if I can track it down, but when I was working in the maritime headquarters in Aberdeen petrofac and the other tenants (as well as the north sea controllers themselves, all part of her majesty's maritime controllers or whatever the fuck) were either expecting to shift south, loose customers (they facilitate shell, bp, apache et all on short term notices for remote crisis centering and stuff) or be hodge podged into some kind of Scottish coast guard. Considering how out of date their facilities are theyd rather stay in the UK and get the overhaul promised in two years time.

[Macros]

sort of what I was talking about

not the story I had read but a more recent dig for them, especially with the fact that a shared currency is looking unlikely.

From what I understand of it the idea to save all the oil money for the future begs the question, well how the fuck do you plan to pay to keep the country running until the future? With its scattered population costs would inevitably go up (costs in England would conversely go down as things like royal mail and other distribution centres would no longer have to shoulder the burden of supplying the highlands at the same price as everyone else, likely would not benefit the people but tescos profits will go up)
so with an increased cost of living, how would the benefits system cope? Would the minimum wages rise in accordance, would that push other large businesses south? Too many unknowns, the whole things feels like its being rushed so they can set up a vote bouyed by a wave of national pride after the commonwealth games.

[Abyss]

An aside, but it fascinates me how much of this debate could replace UK and Scotland with Canada and Quebec and more or less reflect what's going on over here.

[Coco with marshmallows]

Regarding Cougar's point about the SNP getting in power - they probably won't, at least not for long.

Once independence is achieved, the party will likely fracture, as mentioned (or at least implied) upthread one of the main reasons the SNP have achieved a majority in the Scottish parliament is down to the fact that they offer a viable left wing choice of party, something that doesn't seem to exist in mainstream politics as Labour veer more to the right and the Conservatives even more so. Once the unifying goal of the party of independence is achieved, i'd expect at least a few SMP's to break away.


One potential plus point on the independence side, which i haven't seen getting mooted much by the SNP, incidentally, is that independence would begin to resolve the 'West Lothian Question' for Westminster - that is, when Scottish MP's get a vote on matters that affect England only, something that happens currently that i personally don't agree with.

[Cause]

I have never been able to understand how Britain works.

If scotland has its own parliament, what does it matter if the government of Britain as a whole is not one they vote for. What is in the sphere of their own parliament vs the sphere of Britain's parliament?

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

Abyss, on 04 March 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

An aside, but it fascinates me how much of this debate could replace UK and Scotland with Canada and Quebec and more or less reflect what's going on over here.

I was thinking something along the same lines, with a few exceptions. Though, mind you this has not being playing in the news cycle at all. Foreign news has been dominated by the situation in the Ukraine lately. Chances are Scottish independence won't be covered much until we are within a week or two of the referendum date. Which leads me to a few comments and questions.

One of the big conversation pieces I remember from the Quebec referendum was that if Canada was divisible, so was Quebec. There were public statements from most of the First Nations in Quebec that if Quebec seceded they would secede from Quebec and rejoin Canada. Other than Illy's link on the last page referring to Orkney and the Shetlands, I don't see that here.

If Scotland gains independence do they take on a share of the UK debt and how is that share determined? The public PQ stance was that the new nation of Quebec would be debt free, which the rest of the country was obviously against.

Not having your vote matter in elections was rarely an issue with Quebec. Quebec has always been one of the most important provinces in federal elections. Most of the major parties also cycle between francophone and english (or Quebecois and rest of Canada) leaders, aside from Reform and thier current incarnation as the Conservatives.

[D'iversify]

Cause, on 04 March 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

I have never been able to understand how Britain works.

If scotland has its own parliament, what does it matter if the government of Britain as a whole is not one they vote for. What is in the sphere of their own parliament vs the sphere of Britain's parliament?

The English and Scottish Parliaments were united by the Act of Union of 1707, so there wasn't an independent Scottish Parliament for nearly 300 years. From the '60s and '70s onwards, there was a push for devolution. Tony Blair as one of his election promises in 1997 established separate Scottish and Welsh devolved parliaments. The Scottish Parliament is separate from the British parliament, has different MPs, or MSPs as they are known, and is elected based on a mixed system which combines First Past the Post and PR (73 MSPs are voted in by the former, and 56 are elected by the latter [ http://en.wikipedia...._voting_systems ]). The West Lothian Question concerns the fact that there are still MPs in the British Parliament representing Scottish constituencies who can vote on issues which don't concern Scotland. These Scottish MPs are not MSPs, just to clarify.

[Mezla PigDog]

I don't have a strong opinion either way and most of my information comes from The Guardian so it has a slight union bias.

If I was Scottish my heart would say to vote Yes for independence because there is a part of me that hates the English too (and I am English for clarification!). I think it is the part of me that will always be from Lancashire - I hate the Tories, southerners get on my tits and our London-centric politics and economics is infuriating despite the fact that I am doing very nicely out of moving down to the South East. If someone gave me a vote in a referendum for the North or North West to have independence from our southern scumbag brethren then my heart would want to vote Yes in that too. I can just imagine going into a polling booth, picturing David Cameron and George Osbourne's faces and just thinking "Fuck you pair of bastards and all of your ilk".

My head says that staying in a union is for the best but I have a niggling suspicion that it is partly a fear of change. Nobody knows what an independent Scotland will look like but that doesn't mean it won't work. Someone upthread said that Scotland should want to keep the tap open to the money from the London financial sector but when national policy is predominantly made to protect that sector and the people who work in it and their mates then how can anyone really know? Another reason people in England don't want Scotland to break away is the precedent it sets - if Scotland does well on its own then what does that say for England considering all of the arguments to stay are based on a "You need us for X, Y and Z" argument. However, removing the rose tinted glasses I don't think there are any politicians in Britain today that could take an independent Scotland and fashion something that isn't just more of the same. So I'm kind of on the fence. I'd like to see what happens if there is a Yes vote, I don't want you to reject us and I fear change.

A question that has been bugging me is who gets to vote? Do Scottish born people living in England/Wales get a vote or just people who live in Scotland but what if they aren't Scottish?

This post has been edited by Mezla PigDog: 05 March 2014 - 02:27 PM

[Coco with marshmallows]

it's open to anyone registered to vote in Scotland - that is, residents.

If you're an expat living abroad - tough, no vote for you.

Think there 'might' be postal votes for armed forces serving abroad, similar to a normal general election, not certain on that though.

[Tiste Simeon]

That's interesting because there are a whole ton of English people living in Edinburgh so that could sway the vote somewhat... I can't imagine any English people voting yes.

[Coco with marshmallows]

Tisteon Simeonus, on 09 March 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

That's interesting because there are a whole ton of English people living in Edinburgh so that could sway the vote somewhat... I can't imagine any English people voting yes.

Well, of the English people i know living in Scotland, only one has so far made their opinion known.

She's a Yes as it happens.

now that the Euro elections are over i expect the campaigns for both No and Yes to start gearing up up here - meaning i'll be swamped with stuff.
On one hand, this is good, i'll hopefully get more info to make my choice.
OTOH I'm certain the info will be as wildly contradictory as its been to date :/