An independent Scotland?

[ronmcd]

* sigh * so many mistakes

The Irish governments were considered wizards, while things were going well.
Now people look back, and they're idiots.

I wasn't proposing becoming Ireland. Is that the only model? Why would an independent Scotland necessarily follow policies Ireland did? And dont say Salmond ... the political landscape would reset after a yes vote and who know who would be elected. Probably some form of new (old) labour.

If there had been no scottish parliament, there's no reason things would have been worse.

Sure, we don't know. But we would have been forced to follow the same policies as the rest of UK, and it appears people in Scotland dont want those. Better, worse?

You are prejudiced, you support the scot nats. Labour could have done just as well.

I'm an old Labour supporter. But my team disappeared from the field of play. Like many people who voted SNP I still have the same politial beliefs I used to have, it's just which party that is proposing them thats changed. Oh, and I am not and have never been a nationalist but I will vote for independence if no federal or full fiscal autonomy option is available. I do not want the neo-liberal Tory/NewLabour/Libdem policies implemented in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament has been a bulwark against almost ALL of it. I don't see that as prejudiced, or even ideological, just practical.

When Scotland has NO mps in London, and nobody in London cares about Scotland, then investment and devolopment will dry up.

Nonsense, investment is happening now through the combined efforts of the UK govt and Scottish govt, and Scottish Enterprise and inward investment groups. The idea that London is required for investment in Scotland ... lol.

Investors like things when they are backed by the bank of England.
The BOE might let you use the pound, but they won't be backing your banks, or underwriting your debt.
Scots will almost instantly find that they pay a lot more, for their money.
A bank of Scotland has a lot to live down. The last one didn't do too well.

Well, the BofE is the UK central bank, it's Scotlands central bank too . Neither the Bank of Scotland or RBS were central banks of course, the financial sector was and still is reserved. They were regulated (badly) by the UK, and paid taxes to the UK, with not oversight or control from Scotland politically. And now you want to pretend they were anything other than UK commercial banks?

[ronmcd]

An "independent" Scotland would still need to keep sweet with England, considering that is where 60% of their exports go. We love shortbread in England.

I suspect it would be a completely harmonious relationship.

[ronmcd]

Even if Scotland had to Reapply so what ?

True. The idea that the EU wouldnt want Scotland is silly, there would be 2 years between the 2014 referendum and the 2016 elections which would be the first independent elections. It would be sorted seamlessly.

[Red Celt]

Simple : the EU does NOT have a member state called Scotland, since currently Scotland is an integral part of the UK.
Getting out of the UK means Scotland also gets out of the EU, until it is assessed to fulfill the criteria for membership, at least, and is accepted by all the rest.

Can you quote some laws or something?

EU law, by its nature, is pretty verbose. But the President of the EU has had his say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rship.html

That's a quote from the Torygraph. So, again, I'm hesitant to believe those words. I'll have a nosey around, looking for a better source. That aside...

"Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission (EC), said that any new nation state"

Scotland isn't new. It's very old.

"will have to apply for membership under international law."

International law? That doesn't make sense. The law would be within the governance/agreements of the EU, not some "international law" that would govern non-European countries. The issue of the need for an application of membership following the division of an existing EU member... that exists solely in the provisions within the EU. It has fuck all to do with international law.

Which is why I don't trust that article.

[ronmcd]

Simple : the EU does NOT have a member state called Scotland, since currently Scotland is an integral part of the UK.
Getting out of the UK means Scotland also gets out of the EU, until it is assessed to fulfill the criteria for membership, at least, and is accepted by all the rest.

Can you quote some laws or something?

EU law, by its nature, is pretty verbose. But the President of the EU has had his say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rship.html

That's a quote from the Torygraph. So, again, I'm hesitant to believe those words. I'll have a nosey around, looking for a better source. That aside...

"Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission (EC), said that any new nation state"

Scotland isn't new. It's very old.

"will have to apply for membership under international law."

International law? That doesn't make sense. The law would be within the governance/agreements of the EU, not some "international law" that would govern non-European countries. The issue of the need for an application of membership following the division of an existing EU member... that exists solely in the provisions within the EU. It has fuck all to do with international law.

Which is why I don't trust that article.

Yes, there was another EU person quoted recently saying something entirely different. I need to try and find it. But there is no way Scotland would be chucked out, all the EU citizens losing their citizenship (how?), and all those working and living in Scotland - and the rest of UK potentially - having to leave? No, won't happen. And negotiations required will be from within the EU, we all already meet the requirements and things would just need tweaked.

The suggestion I heard was that the EU just wont interfere, and wont get involved. Once there is agreement between the parties within UK, then they would accomodate the changes.

[Red Celt]

Here's my position on Scottish independence.

For years, I've been neutral on the issue. In part, it was because I wasn't living in Scotland. Those who get to decide on what happens in Scotland should be those who will have to live with the consequences... and nobody else.

The occasional "the English should get a vote, too, not just the Scots" brings to mind another remote (and controlled) country. If Nepal had the luxury of voting for independence, would you insist that everyone in China also gets to vote? In a master & slave arrangement, the master shouldn't have a say in whether or not the slave should be granted freedom.

Well, for a few years now, I've been living in Scotland. Ultimately, my desire (wrt the possibility of independence) is that it should be decided based on whatever is best for Scotland. Due to that, my neutrality has shifted towards the "Yes" vote in the 2014 referendum.

And here's why.

Culturally and genetically, I'm a Scot. My parents left Scotland in the 1960s (shortly before I was born) because of economic reasons. They were essentially economic migrants. I was born and raised in England. Until a few years ago, it was my home... although it never really felt like home. I couldn't look at any of the local landmarks, imagining my grandparents or great grandparents being a part of what surrounded me. This wasn't a part of me. During childhood visits back to my parent's hometown, that also didn't feel like home. It was certainly where my ancestors would call home, but to me it was just a holiday destination. I had no solid identity in either country. When asked, I would call myself British before anything else. Mainly because it avoided the English/Scottish confusion. Whether you could argue for claims that I was one or not the other (and which one could be applied to me) I was definitely British.

I was, however, the child of migrants.

And that's what concerns me.

My entire family left Scotland. All 4 grandparents died (and were buried) in England. All of my aunts and uncles moved to England or to America. And why? Because, after hundreds of years of governance from Westminster, Scotland is not a country that aspiring people want to live in. It's where you're born and where you leave. The population has been static since the 1970s (circa 5 million). Now, wouldn't it be great if Scotland were to become a country where its inhabitants wanted to stay? A change is needed and that change can't happen the way things are.

Since the last UK general election, Scotland is being "run" by a coalition of the parties who came in 3rd and 4th in Scotland. This isn't a Conservative country. We're being controlled by people who couldn't give a fuck about the Scottish experience. And that (very much) is not a new thing.

Being pro-independence has nothing to do with a hatred for the English. If you actually believe that, then I'm guessing that you haven't actually been to Scotland. I have an English accent and, in the last 6 years, I've encountered one solitary anti-English moment... from a bunch of neds, telling me to "get back tae where ya came from". Shock news... deprived under-educated fuckwits can be bigotted. Otherwise, all Scots (after hearing my accent) have been no more hate-filled than anyone south of the border.

It should be noted, however, that I've seen a shit-load of anti-Scots rhetoric during the many discussions about independence. Along with the mis-truths that are so readily perpetrated by the pro-unionists that are happy to lie about pretty much everything.

Historically, Scotland has given the world a remarkable amount considering its limited population size. I could list some of them, but fuck it, I'm not about to play the Nationalistic card. We're capable of a lot of things and are (I'm sure) perfectly capable of standing on our own two feet... better, or as well as, all of the other countries in the world who have smaller populations than us.

More to say, but I'll hush. The above is probably already TL;DR.

Oh, and feel free to buy one of my t-shirts.

[klr]

...
That's a quote from the Torygraph. So, again, I'm hesitant to believe those words. I'll have a nosey around, looking for a better source. That aside...

That's been widely reported - as have subsequent comments about Catalonia, which he then tried to water down when the Catalonians got uppity. The Catalonians and Basques are in a different situation though, in that Madrid does not (yet) want to let them have referenda.

"Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission (EC), said that any new nation state"


Scotland isn't new. It's very old.

It might be old, but it's not currently a sovereign nation state. Basically, it's a nation within a sovereign state. That's what the referendum is about changing. Otherwise, why have a referendum?

"will have to apply for membership under international law."

International law? That doesn't make sense. The law would be within the governance/agreements of the EU, not some "international law" that would govern non-European countries. The issue of the need for an application of membership following the division of an existing EU member... that exists solely in the provisions within the EU. It has fuck all to do with international law.

Which is why I don't trust that article.

A part of a county votes to secede from the country as a whole according to and internationally recognised and monitored process - a free and fair referendum. So it becomes a new country, and doesn't inherit anything automatically from the parent state, in terms of membership of international bodies, etc. It will usually get most of that in due course. That's the first part of what Barroso is getting at IMHO.

The second part is that the parent state is an EU member state, which is not your common-or-garden international body. It's never happened before that there's been secession from an EU member state, but the sheer complexities of the EU are such that the seceded state cannot just waltz back in, let alone be acknowledged as a new/continuing member by default. Scotland could be the thin end of the wedge, given what might happen in Spain, Belgium and elsewhere. The remainder of the UK state will also have to talk terms. This is not like Russia retaining membership of the UN security council when the USSR broke up. Here, there are thousands of issues to argue over.

The EU as a whole would want to be seen to accommodate a new state like Scotland - within reason - but the EU is still composed of many different states, each with a separate agenda. There are plenty of member states the same size as Scotland (or smaller) who would certainly play hard ball.

[ronmcd]

Here's my position on Scottish independence.

For years, I've been neutral on the issue. In part, it was because I wasn't living in Scotland. Those who get to decide on what happens in Scotland should be those who will have to live with the consequences... and nobody else.

The occasional "the English should get a vote, too, not just the Scots" brings to mind another remote (and controlled) country. If Nepal had the luxury of voting for independence, would you insist that everyone in China also gets to vote? In a master & slave arrangement, the master shouldn't have a say in whether or not the slave should be granted freedom.

Well, for a few years now, I've been living in Scotland. Ultimately, my desire (wrt the possibility of independence) is that it should be decided based on whatever is best for Scotland. Due to that, my neutrality has shifted towards the "Yes" vote in the 2014 referendum.

And here's why.

Culturally and genetically, I'm a Scot. My parents left Scotland in the 1960s (shortly before I was born) because of economic reasons. They were essentially economic migrants. I was born and raised in England. Until a few years ago, it was my home... although it never really felt like home. I couldn't look at any of the local landmarks, imagining my grandparents or great grandparents being a part of what surrounded me. This wasn't a part of me. During childhood visits back to my parent's hometown, that also didn't feel like home. It was certainly where my ancestors would call home, but to me it was just a holiday destination. I had no solid identity in either country. When asked, I would call myself British before anything else. Mainly because it avoided the English/Scottish confusion. Whether you could argue for claims that I was one or not the other (and which one could be applied to me) I was definitely British.

I was, however, the child of migrants.

And that's what concerns me.

My entire family left Scotland. All 4 grandparents died (and were buried) in England. All of my aunts and uncles moved to England or to America. And why? Because, after hundreds of years of governance from Westminster, Scotland is not a country that aspiring people want to live in. It's where you're born and where you leave. The population has been static since the 1970s (circa 5 million). Now, wouldn't it be great if Scotland were to become a country where its inhabitants wanted to stay? A change is needed and that change can't happen the way things are.

Since the last UK general election, Scotland is being "run" by a coalition of the parties who came in 3rd and 4th in Scotland. This isn't a Conservative country. We're being controlled by people who couldn't give a fuck about the Scottish experience. And that (very much) is not a new thing.

Being pro-independence has nothing to do with a hatred for the English. If you actually believe that, then I'm guessing that you haven't actually been to Scotland. I have an English accent and, in the last 6 years, I've encountered one solitary anti-English moment... from a bunch of neds, telling me to "get back tae where ya came from". Shock news... deprived under-educated fuckwits can be bigotted. Otherwise, all Scots (after hearing my accent) have been no more hate-filled than anyone south of the border.

It should be noted, however, that I've seen a shit-load of anti-Scots rhetoric during the many discussions about independence. Along with the mis-truths that are so readily perpetrated by the pro-unionists that are happy to lie about pretty much everything.

Historically, Scotland has given the world a remarkable amount considering its limited population size. I could list some of them, but fuck it, I'm not about to play the Nationalistic card. We're capable of a lot of things and are (I'm sure) perfectly capable of standing on our own two feet... better, or as well as, all of the other countries in the world who have smaller populations than us.

More to say, but I'll hush. The above is probably already TL;DR.

Oh, and feel free to buy one of my t-shirts.

Wasn't too long, I did read, great post.

[Svartalf]

What should happen in 2014 is restitution of the 6 counties to Eire. Would be great for the millenium of Clontarf.

[ronmcd]

That's been widely reported - as have subsequent comments about Catalonia, which he then tried to water down when the Catalonians got uppity. The Catalonians and Basques are in a different situation though, in that Madrid does not (yet) want to let them have referenda.

What is rarely reported however is the other side. I need to track down the opposite quotes and opinions, including legal. But theres also a difference between Catalonia and Scotland, and it's the reason you will find SNP politicians including Salmond himself being reticent to talk about Catalonia and it's position - Scotland is a country which is in a union with England. If Scotland breaks that union, the result is potentially very complicated.

[Svartalf]

Whereas Catalonia has never been a sovereign state as is, it used to be part of Aragon... the Spanish parts since others were under various fiefdoms going up to the Counts of Toulouse, dules of Aquitain and Provence, and the King of France. (and still are part of France, like Perpignan)

[mistermack]

To be honest, after only a few days of this thread, if I was scottish, I would have been put off seperation.
As time goes on, it can only look worse.
The EU thing looks like being a big unknown, and I can't see a majority voting for such an unknown.

Scotland couldn't possibly adopt the Euro straight away, so the pound is it's only option.
The UK would have no problem staying in the EU. It's already in as a national entity. It would just remain with adjusted borders.

The whole thing has become a complicated nightmare, within the first few days. What it will be like nearer the vote, I can't imagine. Who would vote for such a giant uncertainty? And I can't see Salmond getting any commitments out of the EU. If he's sure of getting straight in, how come he hasn't declared it?

If they want it to be seamless, they will need a timescale of five to ten years. And a lot of luck.

I think Cameron WANTED this vote. That's why he didn't fight too hard on the terms.
I think they've done the analysis, and think it's going to be a no. And they didn't want Salmond to have an excuse to put it off.

[Feck]

Nice ,though I do resent the slur that I haven't been living in Scotland, I have since 1988 .If you don't believe that the majority of people who will vote for independence are voting for Freedumb Then you should ask why Scots will support ANY team that plays England at ANY sport .The Taliban ! could field a team against England and I GUARANTEE That my local pub would be full of Scots cheering them on .I've heard enough casual racism and put up with not only open hostility but on several occasions violence from people who objected to me being in 'their country ' !

You know the worst of it is that I would vote for independence if I thought it would be good for Scotland .
Make case that things will be better for Scotland NOT like others saying if we sink or swim at least we will be 'Scotland the Brave' as we sink and I might be convinced .

[Red Celt]

Translation: Scottish independence is scary and might cause bad things to happen.

I'm not scared.

[Red Celt]

Nice ,though I do resent the slur that I haven't been living in Scotland, I have since 1988 .If you don't believe that the majority of people who will vote for independence are voting for Freedumb Then you should ask why Scots will support ANY team that plays England at ANY sport .The Taliban ! could field a team against England and I GUARANTEE That my local pub would be full of Scots cheering them on .I've heard enough casual racism and put up with not only open hostility but on several occasions violence from people who objected to me being in 'their country ' !

Quite a few years ago (I think it was during the European Championship in Denmark), a BBC interviewer was speaking to a member of the English football team in their hotel. During the interview, there was a chorus of cheers from the other room. The England team were watching Scotland playing one of their matches. Scotland had just conceded a goal.

So don't, for a fucking nanosecond, make any claims that the England/Scotland bitterness is unidirectional.