An independent Scotland?

[ronmcd]

There is no angry violent aspect to the Scottish independence movement, it just doesn't exist. You will find the same level of and support for violence in Scottish independence movement as the anti EU movement in the Tory party.

Sorry Ron, but that is wishful crap.

The Scotland question is entering a completely new phase, unthinkable ten or twenty years ago.

I'm afraid that you prove nothing by pointing to history.
What's coming up is a complete unknown.

Completely unknown, so let's assume it will involve violence? Bullshit.

[John_fi_Skye]

Am I not right in saying there was a wee bit of interest in the possibility of violent struggle for Scottish independence - maybe in the 50s? I think I remember hearing that the spooks in Whitehall were worried it could go like Ireland in 1917. But it didn't.

Yeah, they probably did worry about it. I would guess they were more worried when the oil was found. As we know Whitehall certainly deliberately lied about the knowledge of the extent of oil and how the income might be used, hence the McCrone report:

The McCrone report was a dossier written in 1974 by Professor Gavin McCrone, a leading government economist, for the Conservative UK government into the viability of an independent Scotland.

The report predicted that North sea oil revenue would have given an independent Scotland one of the strongest currencies in Europe and a large tax surplus. On this basis, it went on to say that officials advised government ministers on how to take "the wind out of the SNP sails". The incoming Labour administration classified the document as secret over fears it could give a further boost to the SNP's policy of Scottish independence.[1][2][3]

Thirty years later oil production had peaked and during the decade to 2012 declined by 6% per year, though due to increasing oil prices the annual tax revenue take remains considerable, coming in at around £35 billion in 2011-2012.[4] [5]

The dossier came to light in 2005 when the SNP obtained the report under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The full provisions of the Act came into force on 1 January 2005

But for the non Scots reading this I think it's worth remembering that contrary to some claims, there have ALWAYS been a minorty in Scotland who wanted independence, ever since the union was created I believe. It didn't suddenly appear in the last few years, and equally it didn't start with oil. It's simply that devolution and the disintegration of the Scottish Labour party have opened the way for the SNP to hold power in Scotland ... but not on a mandate for independence. Just on a mandate to ask the question.

So the idea that suddenly, now, in 2012, arguably after the oil boom years have passed, after the time was ripe for some angry violent ultra nationalist group to appear ... suddenly there will be trouble? I dont believe it, and I think when it is mentioned it is often deliberate shit-stirring.

Yes - I'm sure you're right.

I'd just LOVE to get those Tory bastards off my back. Permanently. I've had a good life: I'll volunteer to be a suicide bomber, if one is required. As long as I can have some good malt first.

[klr]

I very much doubt there will be any systematic or organised serious violence, regardless of the outcome. You can never account for what a few individuals might do, but beyond that, I really don't see it as an issue. Then again, I think of the hard core of bigoted hotheads at Celtic v. Rangers, and I wonder.

But I still doubt it.

[Audley Strange]

I very much doubt there will be any systematic or organised serious violence, regardless of the outcome. You can never account for what a few individuals might do, but beyond that, I really don't see it as an issue. Then again, I think of the hard core of bigoted hotheads at Celtic v. Rangers, and I wonder.

But I still doubt it.

Those clowns would be my only concern.

[ronmcd]

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... devolution

The people of Scotland first got the opportunity to vote in a referendum on proposals for devolution in 1979, and though a majority of those voting voted 'Yes', the referendum legislation also required 40% of the electorate to vote 'Yes' for the plans to be enacted. A second referendum opportunity in 1997, this time on a strong proposal, resulted in an overwhelming 'Yes' victory, leading to the Scotland Act 1998 being passed and the Scottish Parliament being established in 1999.

There is a lot of historical Yes' in there.

It's a great point - if there was an opportunity for violence and some sort of division in Scotland, it was 1979. The UK was fucked, the people voted for devolution, and it was prevented by Westminister. And Scots just carried on.

People today know this referendum is NOT about nationalism. It isnt about Scots. It is a question of extending the areas we currently have control over at Holyrood, moving political control from Westminister. Because we all already KNOW what it is like having control of health, education, law, justice etc, it is not the huge leap to control of everything else.

Violent "nationalism" and "seperatism", it isn't.

[John_fi_Skye]

Can I just make a plea for an "A" and not an "E" in the second syllable of words like "separate"?

[ronmcd]

I very much doubt there will be any systematic or organised serious violence, regardless of the outcome. You can never account for what a few individuals might do, but beyond that, I really don't see it as an issue. Then again, I think of the hard core of bigoted hotheads at Celtic v. Rangers, and I wonder.

But I still doubt it.

Those clowns would be my only concern.

Yeah, but those clowns are a constant concern in all areas of life. I worry that they have access to sharp implements and aren't confined to padded cells, for everyones protection. The independence debate is no different.

And thats the key. Those people really are idiots, and they will be idiots in everything, politics, religion, football, facebook trolling, glassing people in pubs. Playing tiddleywinks, if they were capable. It wont affect the referendum, any more than any other part of Scottish life.

[ronmcd]

Can I just make a plea for an "A" and not an "E" in the second syllable of words like "separate"?

I hate that. Especially when it's me.

[Cormac]

I don't think the Basques were fighting about religion.
Just a very similar outdated concept called nationhood.

To be honest, I would have mocked someone who told me that football fans would be sending parcel bombs, over a football rivalry. There is religion mixed in with that rubbish as well, but it's mostly just the moronic them-vs-us mentality that we all have inherited a measure of.

It's a little like comparing an organised knife-wielding gang to a 5 year old who stabs himself at the kitchen table. Basque seperatists (the correct usage of "seperatists" to my mind) have decades of history of political and violent struggle, from their perspective. Scotland? There is no history of violent struggle or oppression, the Scottish National Party have pushed independence for decades and those who support independence are democrats.

There is no angry violent aspect to the Scottish independence movement, it just doesn't exist. You will find the same level of and support for violence in Scottish independence movement as the anti EU movement in the Tory party.

At the risk of going all Red Celt on you guys, I find the suggestion genuinely offensive and disturbing. It's a dreadful smear on what is currently the most progressive left of centre democratic movement in UK politics.

For my two cents, that it is left or right of centre matters little to me.

If opposition to independence were to arise after a yes vote, how does that reflect at all on the movement that brought about that yes vote?

[Audley Strange]

@ Ronmcd

Yeah but it might affect us post Independence, which is what I'm getting at. Such fucks would think nothing of making a point by blowing up the Buchanan Galleries or whatever encouraged by their fuckwits from across the Irish sea. Some of the most staunch loyalist terrorists and criminal gangs operate out of Ayrshire.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong btw.

[John_fi_Skye]

Can I just make a plea for an "A" and not an "E" in the second syllable of words like "separate"?

I hate that. Especially when it's me.

Sorry to be boring.

[ronmcd]

I don't think the Basques were fighting about religion.
Just a very similar outdated concept called nationhood.

To be honest, I would have mocked someone who told me that football fans would be sending parcel bombs, over a football rivalry. There is religion mixed in with that rubbish as well, but it's mostly just the moronic them-vs-us mentality that we all have inherited a measure of.

It's a little like comparing an organised knife-wielding gang to a 5 year old who stabs himself at the kitchen table. Basque seperatists (the correct usage of "seperatists" to my mind) have decades of history of political and violent struggle, from their perspective. Scotland? There is no history of violent struggle or oppression, the Scottish National Party have pushed independence for decades and those who support independence are democrats.

There is no angry violent aspect to the Scottish independence movement, it just doesn't exist. You will find the same level of and support for violence in Scottish independence movement as the anti EU movement in the Tory party.

At the risk of going all Red Celt on you guys, I find the suggestion genuinely offensive and disturbing. It's a dreadful smear on what is currently the most progressive left of centre democratic movement in UK politics.

For my two cents, that it is left or right of centre matters little to me.

If opposition to independence were to arise after a yes vote, how does that reflect at all on the movement that brought about that yes vote?

*shrug* Maybe I should just have said "It's a dreadful smear on a democratic movement". It wasn't the point of my post at any rate.

[ronmcd]

Can I just make a plea for an "A" and not an "E" in the second syllable of words like "separate"?

I hate that. Especially when it's me.

Sorry to be boring.

Ach, I'm emmbarrrased, but I've spelled worser.

[John_fi_Skye]

Speling is importent.

[mistermack]

Just a point about the outcome of the vote.

If the vote is no, I said before that it should be declared that there will be no new vote for 20 years.
I actually think that would be a good thing, because otherwise, Scotland could find that international investment might dry up, if a new independance vote was always hanging in the air as a possibility.

Big companies want certainty, about EU membership, about political stability and about currency.
If the vote is not regarded as final, for a good period, people will just go elsewhere.