News Scotland Seceding: Can UK Survive Without Scotland?

[SteamKing]

It's not readily clear who are the losers should Scotland go its own way. Certainly, the Scots have inflicted grievous harm on the rest of the UK due to their strong support of recent Labour governments and their attendant follies. It's also not clear who would pick up the tab for supporting the Scottish appetite for receiving all sorts of bennies at the expense of the government.

The Queen might lose a home or two should the Scots chuck it in, but the rest of the UK might just say "Good Riddance!"

 

[AlephZero]

All the Scottish bleating about "government from "Westmiinster" is a bit rich, if you consider how many government ministers, and even prime ministers have been Scots. Blair was born and educated in Scotland, though he lost most of the accent somewhere along the way. His government was stuffed with Scots, e.g. Darling, Reid, Dewar, Falconer, and Brown (later prime minister) . Cameron isn't exactly an English name, either.

The "English" Labour party have most to lose form Scottish independence, since they have always been boosted by a high proportion of Scottish Labour MPs.

If the Scots vote yes, IMO all members for Scottish constituencies should be excluded from the Westminster parliament forthwith as a temporary measure, pending sorting out the legal situation before the scheduled 2015 general election.

 

[Ken Natton]

As an Englishman, I do not align myself with the views expressed by either Steamking or AlephZero. I find it difficult to understand how either of them think that their comments are helpful. For my part, I think that what the UK seems to be headed for will be nothing short of tragedy. I am as sure as I can be that this is a decision that the whole of the UK, not just Scotland, will live to regret.

 

[SteamKing]

As an Englishman, I do not align myself with the views expressed by either Steamking or AlephZero. I find it difficult to understand how either of them think that their comments are helpful.

I'm not sure what a 'helpful' comment would mean on this issue.

The fact is, should Scotland vote for independence, there will be winners and losers as a result. The Scots in favor of independence might feel they are the winners if the vote goes their way, but events have a nasty habit of turning on people.

There are those who say that independent Scotland can live comfortably off of oil and gas revenue from the North Sea. There are others who say that the future may not be so rosy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ependent-Scotland-rich-oil-gas-resources.html

With oil and gas revenue from the North Sea in decline, and with the previous windfalls already spent, will an independent Scotland be a new Northern economic colossus, or a windswept economic basket case? Only time will tell for certain.

 

[Ken Natton]

I'm not sure what a 'helpful' comment would mean on this issue.

Well, I am wholly with you on the questionability of the benefits to Scotland of independence. But it does seem clear that, at the very least part of the imperative for independence among the Scottish people is resentment at their perceived treatment by the English. I might like to try to argue that such a feeling is not justified and is more a question of their paranoia than of any actual circumstance. The kind of condescension you displayed in your previous post rather undermines that argument.

My real take on this is that it is not actually true to say that this is only a matter for the Scottish. This vote is going to have a profound effect on the whole of the UK but the vast majority of us have no say. If the whole of the UK was voting on whether to maintain the union or to break up into constituent parts, that would be a fair and democratic vote. But I do get the point that if the strong majority of Scottish people voted for independence, but they were denied that independence because the majority of UK citizens voted against it they would find that hard to take. But that does not change the point that it is a complete fallacy to suggest that this is a matter only for Scottish people. We are all going to have to live with the consequences of their persecution complex.

 

[Zarqon]

There was a recent NY times editorial from Paul Krugman where he indicated he thought the scots would be clearly on the losing side of a split, at least economically. Here is the article.

 

[Ken Natton]

There was a recent NY times editorial from Paul Krugman where he indicated he thought the scots would be clearly on the losing side of a split, at least economically.

Yes, very telling. I think the comparison with the Canadian relationship with the US is a very interesting one. Canada clearly has a very distinct identity from the US and no-one doubts how important that is to them. Clearly Canada does very well economically on its own. Perhaps the on-going comparison between Canada and independent Scotland might prove a very telling measure of the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of independent Scotland. For certain, when we are all trying to crystal ball gaze about what is going to happen, actually the best we can do is look at history and even current affairs elsewhere in the world. It does seem to me that if Scotland is to make a real success of independence they are going to have to buck all the current trends and defy all of the history.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

A week to go now. Scotland may have to cope with a smaller economy for the foreseeable future but if there are other advantages to independence, like being free from the very centralised Westminster parliament. Things may be different if Devo Max was on the cards but it's not. If I were Scottish I'd probably vote for independence too.

What will be interesting in event of a yes vote (other than the 18 months minimum of negotiation) is how the EU and countries within it will react. The Spanish government is said to be quite against the referendum as it may set a precedent for Catalonia to exploit, there have been further [ur;l=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/10/catalonia-independence-day-vote-scotland/15381099/]protests this week over Catalonian independence[/url].

 

[StatGuy2000]

Yes, very telling. I think the comparison with the Canadian relationship with the US is a very interesting one. Canada clearly has a very distinct identity from the US and no-one doubts how important that is to them. Clearly Canada does very well economically on its own. Perhaps the on-going comparison between Canada and independent Scotland might prove a very telling measure of the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of independent Scotland. For certain, when we are all trying to crystal ball gaze about what is going to happen, actually the best we can do is look at history and even current affairs elsewhere in the world. It does seem to me that if Scotland is to make a real success of independence they are going to have to buck all the current trends and defy all of the history.

As a resident of Canada, it's interesting that you mention Canada in reference to the referendum for independence in Scotland, since Canada has faced a similar situation where referendums for independence were held in Quebec (as background, Quebec is a province of Canada which is majority French-speaking, and many of the people there consider themselves to be distinct from the rest of Canada, with a sizable percentages both supporting and opposing independence/sovereignty -- a clearly divisive issue there).

I would be interested to see what the result of the Scotland referendum would be, and what the reaction would be here in Canada, given that Canada also has a significant percentage of the population who are of Scottish ancestry, often with close family ties to the region.

 

[SteamKing]

The kind of condescension you displayed in your previous post rather undermines that argument.

I'm afraid you are laboring under a misunderstanding of my remarks.

I'm neither an advocate of Scottish independence from the UK nor a supporter of her continued union with the kingdom. I'm merely making some observations about what might happen should the vote go for independence. As to what the Scottish people perceive about the rest of the UK, that's best left to them.

As far as I'm concerned, the Scots have to decide who is being more truthful: their own lying Scottish politicians, who promise eternal prosperity and happiness after independence, or the liars from Westminster. Not a choice I envy them. The fact is, whatever choice the Scots make, there are tough times ahead, for Scotland, for the UK, and for Europe as a whole.

 

[Ken Natton]

Crystal ball gazing again, there is another thought that occurs to me. I am quite in acceptance of the possibility that all of the doom saying will prove unfounded and Scotland will do just fine on its own. I retain my doubts about the prognosis, but sometimes patients with a poor prognosis do defy all of the doctors’ expectations. But it is an equally feasible scenario that, while the rest of the UK steadies after an initial wobble, Scotland sinks into a depression of significant magnitude and significant duration. If that does happen, completely inevitably, large numbers of Scottish people, including many who voted for independence, will move south of the border…

 

[Dotini]

As far as I'm concerned, the Scots have to decide who is being more truthful: their own lying Scottish politicians, who promise eternal prosperity and happiness after independence, or the liars from Westminster. Not a choice I envy them. The fact is, whatever choice the Scots make, there are tough times ahead, for Scotland, for the UK, and for Europe as a whole.

I enjoy reading this statement. But could I ask you for examples of how Westminster is lying, please?

 

[SteamKing]

I enjoy reading this statement. But could I ask you for examples of how Westminster is lying, please?

There are a lot of politicians at Westminster. Politicians have been known to lie. Ergo, there must be some politicians at Westminster lying about what is going on in Scotland.

Look, it was under Labour governments in the 1970's that this 'devolution' process began of making Scotland more independent of the United Kingdom. Whether this process was a serious one or a cynical ploy to garner more support for Labour against the resurgent Tories is anyone's guess. The matter simmered throughout the 1980's and early 1990's as the Tories held power, only to come alive again after Tony Blair and Labour took control of the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_1998

After a referendum in Scotland in 1997 gave sufficient support for a devolved Scottish parliament and executive, the Blair government passed the Scotland Act of 1998, codifying the results of the referendum into law. Now some 16 years later, the UK has reached the logical conclusion of 'devolution', which is why the question on the upcoming referendum is whether Scotland should make a political break with the rest of the Kingdom. Now, there is the spectacle of former leaders of the Labour party which encouraged 'devolution', leaders like Gordon Brown, advocating against the culmination of what they set in motion when in power. Of course, as always, Tony Blair is sitting on the fence, grinning vapidly, while waiting to see which way the wind will truly blow on the independence vote.

 

[Dotini]

...the question on the upcoming referendum is whether Scotland should make a political break with the rest of the Kingdom.

Thanks for those links and insights. I'm in touch with some Scots and Brits on another forum. One of their big concerns is of an economic nature, seemingly being more important to them than the political. Even little things like the infamous Nick Robinson BBC 20 seconds on social media provoke some strong reactions.

 

[SteamKing]

Thanks for those links and insights. I'm in touch with some Scots and Brits on another forum. One of their big concerns is of an economic nature, seemingly being more important to them than the political. Even little things like the infamous Nick Robinson BBC 20 seconds on social media provoke some strong reactions.

By 'political break' with the rest of the UK, I mean that the Scots will have to decide things like foreign policy and economic policy, which previously had been handled by London. Certainly, an economic program will have to be put together by the Scots while they are sorting out the form and machinery of their own government, should the vote go for independence. In other words, the new Scottish nation will have to hit the ground running, separating their affairs from the Kingdom while setting up housekeeping on their own.

 

[Ken Natton]

...it was under Labour governments in the 1970's that this 'devolution' process began of making Scotland more independent of the United Kingdom. ... The matter simmered throughout the 1980's and early 1990's as the Tories held power, only to come alive again after Tony Blair and Labour took control of the government.

...

After a referendum in Scotland in 1997 gave sufficient support for a devolved Scottish parliament and executive, the Blair government passed the Scotland Act of 1998, codifying the results of the referendum into law. Now some 16 years later, the UK has reached the logical conclusion of 'devolution', which is why the question on the upcoming referendum is whether Scotland should make a political break with the rest of the Kingdom. Now, there is the spectacle of former leaders of the Labour party which encouraged 'devolution', leaders like Gordon Brown, advocating against the culmination of what they set in motion when in power. ...

Well, again SteamKing, my understanding and recollection of events differs markedly from yours. I do not see a vote on the independence of Scotland as being the logical consequence of the devolution of powers that has been an on-going process over several decades in British politics. Devolution is something I have always wholeheartedly supported and understood the need for. Far from being a progression towards the break-up of the United Kingdom, it is clear to me that its purpose was always to preserve the unity. Devolution was conceived in answer to the belief that one of the causes of disenchantment among the British electorate, particularly in farther flung parts of the UK, was excessive centralisation of powers in Westminster that left many thinking that their vote made no difference and their voice was not really heard. Devolution was never just for the Scottish, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, it always included the English regions. But it was always important to draw the distinction between the powers that needed to be devolved that had greater relevance to people at a local level and little or no effect on Britain’s position in the wider world, and those powers that needed to remain under the domain of strong central government. The break-up of the UK is something else altogether and was the avowed purpose of the Scottish National Party long before anyone thought of devolution.

 

[SteamKing]

Well, again SteamKing, my understanding and recollection of events differs markedly from yours. I do not see a vote on the independence of Scotland as being the logical consequence of the devolution of powers that has been an on-going process over several decades in British politics. Devolution is something I have always wholeheartedly supported and understood the need for. Far from being a progression towards the break-up of the United Kingdom, it is clear to me that its purpose was always to preserve the unity. Devolution was conceived in answer to the belief that one of the causes of disenchantment among the British electorate, particularly in farther flung parts of the UK, was excessive centralisation of powers in Westminster that left many thinking that their vote made no difference and their voice was not really heard. Devolution was never just for the Scottish, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, it always included the English regions. But it was always important to draw the distinction between the powers that needed to be devolved that had greater relevance to people at a local level and little or no effect on Britain’s position in the wider world, and those powers that needed to remain under the domain of strong central government. The break-up of the UK is something else altogether and was the avowed purpose of the Scottish National Party long before anyone thought of devolution.

Perhaps the Labour Party wished that the Scots wouldn't take the hint and would go on their merry way within the Kingdom, but events didn't turn out that way.

Mixing in devolution while there was a surging Scottish Nationalist Party was a recipe for disaster, as far as maintaining a 'United' Kingdom. The Conservative leadership is treading carefully on this issue and others, as the UKIPers hope to mount a challenge to the present government.

It's hard enough to maintain a 'strong central government' while you are devolving it all over the place. It's also not clear how, if you think your voice is not being heard in the capital, that adding more layers of government will remedy this defect. Instead of bringing your voice closer to the seat of power, you are pushing it farther away, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

...

With oil and gas revenue from the North Sea in decline, ...

North sea *oil* production is in decline. Gas production is not, at least not for the Norwegian side.

 

[mheslep]

...
What will be interesting in event of a yes vote (other than the 18 months minimum of negotiation) is how the EU and countries within it will react. The Spanish government is said to be quite against the referendum as it may set a precedent for Catalonia to exploit, there have been further [ur;l=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/10/catalonia-independence-day-vote-scotland/15381099/]protests this week over Catalonian independence[/url].

Not just Spain. Romania, Italy, Belgium, others, have secessionist movements. Allowing a split state to join the EU would be throwing gasoline on the fire. For this reason, Barroso said said it would be '"very difficult, if not impossible" for a secessionist territory to become an EU member state'. There are other difficulties, like deficit size that would keep Scotland out, and not likely to get a pass given the recent fiasco in Greece. But fear of encouraging secession alone elsewhere gives Scotland no chance of entering the EU.

 

[mheslep]

Mistake or no, I appreciate the Scott's ability to decide on independence for themselves. In the US the most remote are not a couple hundred miles removed from the federal capital but three to five time zones away. Yet discussion of the subject (secession from the federal government) in the US is never more than a few seconds removed from calls of treason by the self-righteous.

 

[Astronuc]

Thursday, Sept 18 this week is the vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-scottish-independence-now-i-get-it-195951504.html

J.K.Rowling is opposed to independence, while Sean Connery favors independence.

http://news.yahoo.com/scottish-independence-could-mean-messy-divorce-084556829--finance.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-an-opportunity-not-to-be-missed-9163489.html
"Sir Sean Connery is urging Scots to vote in favour of independence, saying it is too good an opportunity to miss." Connery apparently "claimed a vote in favour of leaving the UK in September's referendum would “capture the world's attention”."

Well, certainly if it doesn't go well afterwards.

 

[WhatIsGravity]

Compared to what's going on in the rest of the world, I don't think Scotland should secede. In my opinion, the UK is like the United States in that regards. We all have our differences and opinions, and histories... but still. The word 'country', even union, seems kinda loose these days.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Compared to what's going on in the rest of the world, I don't think Scotland should secede. In my opinion, the UK is like the United States in that regards. We all have our differences and opinions, and histories... but still. The word 'country', even union, seems kinda loose these days.

The thing is the UK is not like the US or any other federal nation. We're a unitary state and whilst powers have been slowly devolved to the individual countries in the union the Westminster parliament still rules supreme. If devo max was on the table that much change the discussion but it's not.

 

[Czcibor]

1) I find some irony in position of more nationalistic leaning British people. I mean all their stories how everything would be better when they leave the EU, with outrage that Scottish think that everything would be better when they leave the UK.

Somehow I think about something that in psychology is referred as "illusionary superiority" and explains many bold economic decisions like takeovers, because managers genuinely believe that they would manage the bought company better that their "dumb" rivals.

2) I think that there is one more aspect that was ignored concerning Scotland - EU relations. What with treaties where the UK has their opt-out? I mean for example 0% VAT rate for food. (112nd Directive says it is supposed to be at least 5%) Old countries that created the rules, usually left for themselves many peculiarities and exemptions. New countries usually were given uniform laws to be implemented. It's not a real tragedy, but I think that no one so far mentioned here this incomming face slap.

3) Let's assume that everything goes according to plan. If they stay with pound, the main difference is that Scots would have to offer British students free education. :D (except in scenario in which the rest of the UK leaves the EU)

4) Currency union with UK and EU accession - In optimistic scenario they end up where they are now, in bad something fails because of silly technicalities / petty quarrel.

5) At least my impression is that there is an awful amount of overpromise on Scottish side, including both outstanding increase of social spending and moderate tax cut. It would end up with disillusionment, even if there is actually a net gain (indeed some money from natural resources, plus hard to quantify satisfaction from turning a bit left according to local expectations.)

 

[Czcibor]

North sea *oil* production is in decline. Gas production is not, at least not for the Norwegian side.

OK, but it means that first decision of independent Scotland is to invade Norway, to get the fields that you mentioned here. :D

The UK oil and gas production is in decline.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=uk

 

[CWatters]

1) I find some irony in position of more nationalistic leaning British people. I mean all their stories how everything would be better when they leave the EU, with outrage that Scottish think that everything would be better when they leave the UK.

There is a difference. Scotland want to stay part of the financial union without the political union. That's very difficult as some members of the Euro are finding out.

2) I think that there is one more aspect that was ignored concerning Scotland - EU relations. What with treaties where the UK has their opt-out? I mean for example 0% VAT rate for food. (112nd Directive says it is supposed to be at least 5%) Old countries that created the rules, usually left for themselves many peculiarities and exemptions. New countries usually were given uniform laws to be implemented. It's not a real tragedy, but I think that no one so far mentioned here this incomming face slap.

That has come up. There are going to be a million issues that have to be resolved. Even getting post delivered to remote parts of Scotland could be an issue as I understand the Royal Mail would no longer be required to deliver to unprofitable parts of the country.

4) Currency union with UK and EU accession - In optimistic scenario they end up where they are now, in bad something fails because of silly technicalities / petty quarrel.

I can't see how you can have real independence over economic policy without your own currency or interest rates. In recent years the Bank of England has switched to using interest rates to control inflation. If you cannot use that mechanisim you better be careful what you do with public spending as that also affects inflation. In short everything is linked.

5) At least my impression is that there is an awful amount of overpromise on Scottish side, including both outstanding increase of social spending and moderate tax cut. It would end up with disillusionment, even if there is actually a net gain (indeed some money from natural resources, plus hard to quantify satisfaction from turning a bit left according to local expectations.)

Public spending is already higher in Scotland per head than in the rest of the UK...and they are promising more. Good luck with that.

Sorry I've no idea why not all the quote tag aren't working.

 

[Ken Natton]

I have expressed by concern about the result of this vote and my belief that no-one’s best interests would be served if Scotland votes for independence. But now I find myself wondering what is going to happen if the result is not for independence. For sure, it is going to be one hell of an anti-climax. But then what? Carry on as before? I’m not sure that is going to be possible. Yeah, sure the dust will settle and the campaign leaflets will be disposed of. But will even a No vote leave a lasting legacy on Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK?

 

[mal4mac]

OK, but it means that first decision of independent Scotland is to invade Norway, to get the fields that you mentioned here. :D

No the first decision is to keep the nuclear submarines, then invade Norway :D

 

[PeroK]

I have expressed by concern about the result of this vote and my belief that no-one’s best interests would be served if Scotland votes for independence. But now I find myself wondering what is going to happen if the result is not for independence. For sure, it is going to be one hell of an anti-climax. But then what? Carry on as before? I’m not sure that is going to be possible. Yeah, sure the dust will settle and the campaign leaflets will be disposed of. But will even a No vote leave a lasting legacy on Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK?

I think you're right that a close "no" will make it difficult. If 49% of people in Scotland vote to leave the UK, it must affect the ongoing relationship within the UK. And, if 49% vote to stay, they'll be unhappy at the upheaval of separation.

 

[D H]

But now I find myself wondering what is going to happen if the result is not for independence. For sure, it is going to be one hell of an anti-climax. But then what? Carry on as before? I’m not sure that is going to be possible.

There's a lesson to be learned here from Quebec, but no one seems to have learned these lessons. Quebec regularly has referendums on withdrawing from Canada. This regularly causes economic harm to Quebec and to Canada as a whole.

Losing such a referendum is but a minor setback for the pro-separatists. Some set of events will eventually result in the general Quebecois populace once again being upset with being Canadians. Another referendum is just a downturn away; maybe the separatists will win the next time around. They only need to win once. I suspect it would be very hard to put Humpty Dumpty back together again after a separatist win, even if the Quebecois find that living separately from their former countrymen turns out to be a bed of thorns rather than a bed of roses.