Topic: Scottish Independence - No Wins!

[RupertCommunicator]

Having been born in England, educated in Scotland, employed by the BRITISH Army and having spent a decent chunk of time living in Norn Iron, I can add the following pearls of wisdom:

1.  Scotland is a pretty decent place.
2. The North East of England (minus wearyside) is also pretty decent.
3. The rest of England and Wales is alright with the exceptions of London and Merseyside (which are full of c***s) and Birmingham (which is a shithole).
4.  Norn Iron is about 200 years behind everyone else due to some Sectarian pricks who have ruined the place.

Therefore, if the split happened, i'd rather it was at Cleveland in order to say with the decent half of the country. But it wouldn't work because the Scottish economy would instantly fold.
I'd be all for giving Norn Iron away though, nothing to offer the UK whatsoever.

[Decky]

Northern Ireland would never be part of the UK if it wasnt for Unionists, that is literally the only reason its still in the union. If a day comes when Northern Ireland has more nationalists than unionists, you can expect the Brits to give it up in a heartbeat. If the Irish economy is better of course.

[johnnypd]

As someone born in Newcastle, but who has lived most his life in Scotland, I've got an arseful of splinters from having sat on the fence on this issue for years. On balance, if I think about it then I have to admit I have a good deal of sympathy with those who call for greater autonomy for Scotland, not least because of what Thatcher did to this country and the Poll Tax being just one of them, but I'm not in favour of independence. I think I'd actually favour a system of federal government with power devolved to all four home nations, each having their own Parliament (possibly with England having two assemblies, one for North of England and another for the South of England). I think that would ensure that every area had a more representative system of government, and a greater degree of self-determination in terms of social and economic policy. I'd also want the House of Lords to become an elected UK-wide Senate with overall control of defence, foreign affairs and international development. That would make sense to me.

There's no clear, definitive evidence on whether Scotland could actually go it alone successfully, or if there is I have yet to see it, but these recent news stories make for interesting reading if you're bothered enough to equip yourselves with some slightly more informed opinion on the issue, rather than rolling out half-arsed, dog-eared, cliché-ridden, angst laden tripe that dogs this debate.

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/22/new-study-undermines-economic-independence-scotland
• http://news.scotsman.com/scottishindependence/Michael-Keating-How-can-Scotland.6785081.jp
• http://news.stv.tv/scotland/253188-snp-economic-adviser-unsure-of-benefits-independence-would-bring/

I have to say the comments in this thread by some folks about wanting to escape to Scotland to escape the ravages of Tory government have put a wry smile of recognition on my face. After all, it was only 7 years ago that the North-East was given an opportunity to have its own Assembly which was rejected at the time, quite forcefully: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm

Yep, I'd be in favour of a more federalised UK, with an NE assembly, Yorkshire parliament etc, or whatever, with Scotland being part of that with probably even greater autonomy than now. I think the current set up is pretty amazing for the Scots tbh, with many of the advantages of the union - having their banks bailed out by the govt for instance, had they gone it alone it would've crippled the nation, or having cheaper NHS or University access, benefits im not sure they could afford being independent. while they also have many of the advantages of a more independent approach.

The NE missing out on a regional assembly was a devastating missed opportunity - the tories manipulative, negative approach apparently convinced the more naturally conservative or stupid north-easterners who bought lies about bureacracy, or bought into the regional infighting that mackems revel in. certainly doesn't raise a wry smile to my face - more like an angry scowl

On a personal level since I live in Scotland i wouldnt want to wake up one morning to find out i'm no longer in "my" country. i also think nationalism has a narrow minded, insular streak that i wouldn't want to see encouraged any further. though maybe the chip on the shoulder that many scots have would disappear with full independence.

[GeordieMessiah]

As someone born in Newcastle, but who has lived most his life in Scotland, I've got an arseful of splinters from having sat on the fence on this issue for years. On balance, if I think about it then I have to admit I have a good deal of sympathy with those who call for greater autonomy for Scotland, not least because of what Thatcher did to this country and the Poll Tax being just one of them, but I'm not in favour of independence. I think I'd actually favour a system of federal government with power devolved to all four home nations, each having their own Parliament (possibly with England having two assemblies, one for North of England and another for the South of England). I think that would ensure that every area had a more representative system of government, and a greater degree of self-determination in terms of social and economic policy. I'd also want the House of Lords to become an elected UK-wide Senate with overall control of defence, foreign affairs and international development. That would make sense to me.

There's no clear, definitive evidence on whether Scotland could actually go it alone successfully, or if there is I have yet to see it, but these recent news stories make for interesting reading if you're bothered enough to equip yourselves with some slightly more informed opinion on the issue, rather than rolling out half-arsed, dog-eared, cliché-ridden, angst laden tripe that dogs this debate.

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/22/new-study-undermines-economic-independence-scotland
• http://news.scotsman.com/scottishindependence/Michael-Keating-How-can-Scotland.6785081.jp
• http://news.stv.tv/scotland/253188-snp-economic-adviser-unsure-of-benefits-independence-would-bring/

I have to say the comments in this thread by some folks about wanting to escape to Scotland to escape the ravages of Tory government have put a wry smile of recognition on my face. After all, it was only 7 years ago that the North-East was given an opportunity to have its own Assembly which was rejected at the time, quite forcefully: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm

Yep, I'd be in favour of a more federalised UK, with an NE assembly, Yorkshire parliament etc, or whatever, with Scotland being part of that with probably even greater autonomy than now. I think the current set up is pretty amazing for the Scots tbh, with many of the advantages of the union - having their banks bailed out by the govt for instance, had they gone it alone it would've crippled the nation, or having cheaper NHS or University access, benefits im not sure they could afford being independent. while they also have many of the advantages of a more independent approach.

The NE missing out on a regional assembly was a devastating missed opportunity - the tories manipulative, negative approach apparently convinced the more naturally conservative or stupid north-easterners who bought lies about bureacracy, or bought into the regional infighting that mackems revel in. certainly doesn't raise a wry smile to my face - more like an angry scowl

On a personal level since I live in Scotland i wouldnt want to wake up one morning to find out i'm no longer in "my" country. i also think nationalism has a narrow minded, insular streak that i wouldn't want to see encouraged any further. though maybe the chip on the shoulder that many scots have would disappear with full independence.

Whereabouts do you live, johnnypd?

[CaliMag]

i also think nationalism has a narrow minded, insular streak that i wouldn't want to see encouraged any further.

That's the pith of this discussion really and the biggest argument against independence, for both England and Scotland BTW. If Scotland left, as Ozzy pointed out, Tories would rule supreme and I fear they and England ingeneral would move more toward nationalism as well.

[colinmk]

"you lot" being the north east, not GM and the rest of the sporran wearers.

I am not actually Scottish, nor do I own or have I ever worn a sporran.

But I take your point otherwise.

  GM man, get yourself a sporran, you're missing out.

[GeordieMessiah]

"you lot" being the north east, not GM and the rest of the sporran wearers.

I am not actually Scottish, nor do I own or have I ever worn a sporran.

But I take your point otherwise.

  GM man, get yourself a sporran, you're missing out.

Well I do have two cats.

[colinmk]

"you lot" being the north east, not GM and the rest of the sporran wearers.

I am not actually Scottish, nor do I own or have I ever worn a sporran.

But I take your point otherwise.

  GM man, get yourself a sporran, you're missing out.

Well I do have two cats.

Keep those poor cats away from there!

[johnnypd]

As someone born in Newcastle, but who has lived most his life in Scotland, I've got an arseful of splinters from having sat on the fence on this issue for years. On balance, if I think about it then I have to admit I have a good deal of sympathy with those who call for greater autonomy for Scotland, not least because of what Thatcher did to this country and the Poll Tax being just one of them, but I'm not in favour of independence. I think I'd actually favour a system of federal government with power devolved to all four home nations, each having their own Parliament (possibly with England having two assemblies, one for North of England and another for the South of England). I think that would ensure that every area had a more representative system of government, and a greater degree of self-determination in terms of social and economic policy. I'd also want the House of Lords to become an elected UK-wide Senate with overall control of defence, foreign affairs and international development. That would make sense to me.

There's no clear, definitive evidence on whether Scotland could actually go it alone successfully, or if there is I have yet to see it, but these recent news stories make for interesting reading if you're bothered enough to equip yourselves with some slightly more informed opinion on the issue, rather than rolling out half-arsed, dog-eared, cliché-ridden, angst laden tripe that dogs this debate.

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/22/new-study-undermines-economic-independence-scotland
• http://news.scotsman.com/scottishindependence/Michael-Keating-How-can-Scotland.6785081.jp
• http://news.stv.tv/scotland/253188-snp-economic-adviser-unsure-of-benefits-independence-would-bring/

I have to say the comments in this thread by some folks about wanting to escape to Scotland to escape the ravages of Tory government have put a wry smile of recognition on my face. After all, it was only 7 years ago that the North-East was given an opportunity to have its own Assembly which was rejected at the time, quite forcefully: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm

Yep, I'd be in favour of a more federalised UK, with an NE assembly, Yorkshire parliament etc, or whatever, with Scotland being part of that with probably even greater autonomy than now. I think the current set up is pretty amazing for the Scots tbh, with many of the advantages of the union - having their banks bailed out by the govt for instance, had they gone it alone it would've crippled the nation, or having cheaper NHS or University access, benefits im not sure they could afford being independent. while they also have many of the advantages of a more independent approach.

The NE missing out on a regional assembly was a devastating missed opportunity - the tories manipulative, negative approach apparently convinced the more naturally conservative or stupid north-easterners who bought lies about bureacracy, or bought into the regional infighting that mackems revel in. certainly doesn't raise a wry smile to my face - more like an angry scowl

On a personal level since I live in Scotland i wouldnt want to wake up one morning to find out i'm no longer in "my" country. i also think nationalism has a narrow minded, insular streak that i wouldn't want to see encouraged any further. though maybe the chip on the shoulder that many scots have would disappear with full independence.

Whereabouts do you live, johnnypd?

living in Edinburgh atm. stockbridge area or thereabouts. nicest place ive lived in the UK.

[GeordieMessiah]

Thought this article was both thoughtful and thought-provoking in equal measure.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/15/neal-ascherson-scottish-independence-salmond

 
Let Scotland be a sovereign, mature nation and England benefits too
Scots have long wanted to run their own affairs, but don't want independence. Devo max gives them that chance
 
Neal Ascherson
The Observer, Sunday 15 January 2012

Slowly but inexorably, the coalition government is backing into a Scottish trap. But in the end it's a benevolent trap. If it clangs shut, the nations of the United Kingdom – England as well as Scotland – may emerge transformed into a wiser, modernised relationship in which they can cope with their own problems without illusions.

Everything depends on getting the famous "second question" into the referendum. This is the option for "devolution plus" or "devo max". It's the choice that Scotland should acquire full control over taxation and other "reserved matters" while staying – for the present – within the United Kingdom which would keep authority over foreign policy and defence. In other words, complete internal autonomy – as practised in several European multinational states. Spain, for instance, grants full internal self-government, including taxation powers, to the Basque country and Catalonia.

So far, the powers in London and Edinburgh won't admit that any such option should stand on the ballot paper. David Cameron and Ed Miliband, queasily supported by the Liberal Democrats, demand the single question: yes or no to full sovereign independence. Alex Salmond, first minister and leader of the SNP, doesn't shut the door on that second question. But he continues to insist that by 2014 the Scottish people will be ready to return a solid majority vote for independence.

Does he really believe it? In an article published in Friday's Herald, Salmond scathingly derided the panicky efforts of Westminster to impose its own terms and date for the referendum, which he claims are merely hardening support for "independence, nothing less". He did not even mention the "second question". But everyone knows that it's on his mind.

There's a gross contrast between the muddled uproar in the Westminster village and the sardonic calm north of the border. The Scots have heard all this stuff many times in the past half-century, especially the bedraggled old threat that uncertainty about the constitutional future is driving business away from Scotland (the evidence for it is still zero). They are entertained and stimulated by the fuss. But they are waiting to see if anyone is going to make the Scots an offer resembling what most people want.

Scotland is a deeply conservative country – with a small "c". The colossal uprootings and transformations of the industrial and agrarian revolutions left the Scots with a heavy distrust of social experiment. Politics has become a matter of drastic steps to preserve older securities. In that sense, paradoxically, the SNP can be seen as the most "British" of parties. Its social programme is to preserve and fortify what's left of the old British welfare state consensus, building a new Hadrian's Wall against the neoliberal tsunami that has weakened social justice and cohesion in England from Thatcher through Blair and Brown to Cameron. Ironically, this resistance is also the programme of the Scottish Labour party, brutally traumatised by the experience of Blairism and New Labour. On almost all policy save constitutional matters, the two parties agree. But they hate each other too much to say so.

In the same way, Scottish views about how their nation should be governed show a stolid consistency across generations. For most of my working life, the polls have shown the wish for independence drifting up and down between 20 and 30%. Nothing , not even the years of hating Mrs Thatcher, seemed to change that significantly. Some polls taken in the present crisis show the figure rising slightly over that 30%. It's still a minority, and – unless something outrageous happens – it's almost impossible to imagine that Alex Salmond could create his clear majority for independence by 2014. And that cunning man – "sleekit" is a good Scottish word for him – must know that in his heart.

Many Scottish politicians, starting with John Smith and Donald Dewar, have talked about "the settled will of the Scottish people". Few have taken that will to its full conclusion. But, as a matter of fact, it has been broadly clear for about 40 years. It's really quite simple. The Scots want to run their own country as other small nations do. Most of them want to stay in the Union. They want a Scottish government that is not bossed about by London, and especially not by English politicians in parties most Scots did not vote for. As David – now Lord – Steel said a few years ago: "No self-respecting parliament can exist permanently on a grant from another parliament."

This preference has been around for much longer than people realise. Oddly, it was a main reason for Scottish Labour's initial hostility to devolution in the 1970s. This assembly would just be a talking shop, or so ran their line. They felt that if it had real powers to change the lives of working people in Scotland, that would be a different matter. Many non-political Scots agreed with that. They also saw that devolution had been invented to "dish the Nats" and not because Harold Wilson thought it was a good thing in itself. Those old anti-devolution campaigners predicted – rightly, as it turned out – that a Scottish Parliament, far from dishing the SNP, would eventually unlock the doors of power for them.

That proposal failed in 1979. Tony Blair revived devolution for Scotland and Wales and the Scottish referendum in 1997 produced a strong "yes". But the new Scottish Parliament, wonderfully open and democratic in its procedures, was still financed by a block grant from London and lacked control over some important areas – immigration, broadcasting, the coastal seabed among them. Within a year, public mutters began to suggest the Parliament needed wider powers if it was to command real respect. Slowly, the politicians responded. Wendy Alexander, for Scottish Labour, suggested a transfer of tax powers. In 2006, the Scottish Liberal Democrats called for "fiscal federalism" allowing Holyrood to raise and vary most taxes, perhaps even corporation and income taxes.

Then things began to move fast. The SNP formed a minority government in 2007, and won a crushing overall victory in May 2011. In response, the Westminster government drafted a new Scotland bill whose minor concessions, including control of airgun licences and speed limits, some borrowing powers, a right to modify some income tax, were already far behind the curve when they were published. The SNP retorted by demanding far higher borrowing rights, full control of taxes (including corporation tax), devolution of the Crown Estate (inshore seabed) and broadcasting.

This is what's now known as devo max. Its idea of "fiscal autonomy" means that Holyrood would set, raise and keep all taxes – remitting to London Scotland's share of common costs on foreign affairs and defence. As soon as this plan was published, it became widely popular. Why not? For the first time, somebody had put forward a scheme coming close to that long-standing, patient wish – "to run our own affairs as other nations do".

Today, the polls suggest that this version of devo max is supported by some 70% of Scottish voters. But the coalition parties and the Labour opposition in London are determined to keep it off the ballot paper. The SNP government will let it in by the back door in their referendum consultation document, due in 10 days' time.

And how does devo max fit with that persistence preference to stay within the Union? And what happens if the two wishes converge? If the majority's preference for full "federal" autonomy is blocked by London, won't independence appear in a quite different light – as a reluctant necessity, as the only means to reach that full self-government? That has to be one of the scenarios revolving in the Big Eck brain. Another, given Salmond's rare sense of political process, must be that devo max can also be seen as verging on "Independence Lite", which – given some predictable wrangles with London – can easily slide into independence full strength.

This weekend, an independent campaign was being organised in Edinburgh to fight for the "second question" – the one which so obviously corresponds to what most Scots want. By denying it and concentrating on the "Independence: Yes or No" choice, the coalition and the Unionist camp are backing into the trap. If Salmond runs his own consultative referendum including that second question, there would be a huge majority for sweeping change. If the coalition tries to impose its own referendum, Salmond could call for a boycott and render it meaningless – except as a poisonous abscess of mistrust between the two countries.

Independence means not being dependent. "Max-devolved" or sovereign, a new Scotland responsible for its own resources – and blunders – would be a far better partner for England. And the English would at last have to face their own problems: a decent nation grotesquely dominated by the interests of the rich south-east and the City of London. Giving the Scots what most of them want can also mean "England Arise!" This referendum is a historic chance for change – and not just for Scotland.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/15/neal-ascherson-scottish-independence-salmond/print

[mrmojorisin75]

interesting what ian said back at the start of this thread, that people should be moving towards integration not away from it - hadn't thought of it like that, couldn't agree more really

[TaylorJ_01]

Can tell you that me nor any of my mates support independence. It's no surprise that the dregs of Scottish society are the ones supporting it.

[Northerngimp]

Bad crack for us in the north of england if the scots really do want to be on there own.  We will be totally dominated by the south of england.

[ObiChrisKenobi]

I'm all for Scottish independence, and you can add Welsh and Irish independence in to the pot to boot. IMO England is under represented in Westminster and foots the bill for the other countries while not getting the same benefits like free prescriptions, no tuition fees, drugs that are restricted in England due to cost but available in Scotland etc etc. The whole idea of the Union is past it's sell by date and devolution has only served to hasten the full break-up of it. It would have happened eventually. England should have it's own parliament and take control of her own affairs as should the other members of the union.

This isn't a racist thing by the way. Colour or religion don't come in to it. It's purely about people living in England, regardless of ethnicity, being ripped off by the rest of the UK.

Aye, be interesting to see how Scotland & Wales fund their own governments.

[Northerngimp]

Where would scotland pull enough revenue from to support 5 million people, free education, free health care, millitary, social support and whatever else is needed for a modern western country.

[80]

The Money Fairy, what are you stupid or something?

[Decky]

Theres plenty of oil in Scotland isn't there?

[neesy111]

Theres plenty of oil in Scotland isn't there?

There's a bit, but what industry do they have when it runs out.

[Stu]

Theres plenty of oil in Scotland isn't there?

There's a bit, but what industry do they have when it runs out.

Whisky and haggis farming

[neesy111]

Theres plenty of oil in Scotland isn't there?

There's a bit, but what industry do they have when it runs out.

Whisky and haggis farming

True, but the amount of tax made on oil must supplement quite a bit of the scottish economy.

[Incognito]

Theres plenty of oil in Scotland isn't there?

There's a bit, but what industry do they have when it runs out.

Whisky and haggis farming

True, but the amount of tax made on oil must supplement quite a bit of the scottish economy.

They use most of the oil in their cooking don't they?

[Northerngimp]

The Money Fairy, what are you stupid or something?

Stupid me aye.

But seriously, they'll have to have some serious reform if they think they can give all the pubilc "free" services.

[indi]

Theres plenty of oil in Scotland isn't there?

There's a bit, but what industry do they have when it runs out.

Whisky and haggis farming

True, but the amount of tax made on oil must supplement quite a bit of the scottish economy.

Something that never seems to get mentioned is even if the oil ends up being under Scottish territorial waters, the companies who are exploiting it are not Scottish and will not choose to be, meaning that most of the profits from the oil would leave the country.

[Northerngimp]

Theres plenty of oil in Scotland isn't there?

There's a bit, but what industry do they have when it runs out.

Whisky and haggis farming

True, but the amount of tax made on oil must supplement quite a bit of the scottish economy.

Something that never seems to get mentioned is even if the oil ends up being under Scottish territorial waters, the companies who are exploiting it are not Scottish and will not choose to be, meaning that most of the profits from the oil would leave the country.

Would the scots not then tax the oil companies appropraitely ?

[OzzieMandias]

There's going to be one hell of an argument about where the offshore boundary goes and which oilfields belong to which country.