News Scotland Seceding: Can UK Survive Without Scotland?

[SW VandeCarr]

I just read that Scotland is to vote on independence in 2014. If Scotland leaves the UK, will it still be the UK? Can there be a United Kingdom with just England and Wales?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I just read that Scotland is to vote on independence in 2014. If Scotland leaves the UK will it still be the UK? Can there be a United Kingdom with just England and Wales?

What about Northern Ireland?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

What about Northern Ireland?

I don't know. Northern Ireland has a different relationship to the UK than Scotland. Anyway the Protestant majority there has no desire to secede as far as I know. But historically, neither Northern Ireland nor Wales have ever been kingdoms. Therefore, I don't think you can have a United Kingdom since it was defined by the union of England and Scotland in 1707.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I saw this story in my newpaper. Here's a link.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/15/britain-scotland-idUSL6E8CF0JF20120115

I knew there was some talk of this over the years but I never took very seriously. Polls in England indicate more support than oppose Scottish independence, but less than a majority because of the apparent undecided vote.

 

[AlephZero]

Being pedantic, the question should be about Great Britain, since the UK is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Nothing is likely to happen very fast, but part of the issue in England is that the English had quite enough of the 10 years of a Labour government which seemed to be run entirely by ministers who were Scots. (Even Tony Blair was educated in Scotland, though he never learned the accent).

There is also the "West Lothian Question:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question
- which became more of an issue now that Wales and Scotland both have their own elected parliaments.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Being pedantic, the question should be about Great Britain, since the UK is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Yes, but they use UK for short, while many in the US call the country Great Britain or just Britain.

Nothing is likely to happen very fast, but part of the issue in England is that the English had quite enough of the 10 years of a Labour government which seemed to be run entirely by ministers who were Scots. (Even Tony Blair was educated in Scotland, though he never learned the accent).

Well, they've set a referendum for the fall of 2014. I don't know if it will be binding. The Tory government in London wants the vote to be all or nothing; independence or status quo. I think Scotland wants to negotiate a looser relationship perhaps just leaving defense and foreign relations to the UK. but being otherwise independent.

There is also the "West Lothian Question:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question
- which became more of an issue now that Wales and Scotland both have their own elected parliaments.

Yes. I know about that. One solution would be to have three parliaments (or four if Wales wants to upgrade the Assembly, but I think Wales would prefer the status quo). Northern Ireland used to have its own parliament but it was abolished by London in 1972 in exchange for N.I. having members in the Westminster Parliament. Under this arrangement the current Westminster Parliament would cease to exist and the UK would only exist under the common sovereignty of the monarchy and perhaps a some common arrangements for defense and foreign policy. Frankly I doubt this Balkanization will really benefit anyone in the long run. The funny thing is that England, with about 10 times the population of Scotland, would probably benefit if anyone does, provided the North Sea oil and debt issues can be be resolved on a proportional basis (a big "if").

 

[Ken Natton]

Never has it been seriously suggested that the Westminster Parliament would cease to exist. The only thing at question is what its jurisdiction will be. And 2014 has not been set, the date of the referendum along with the precise wording of the question that will be posed is exactly where the active argument is at.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Never has it been seriously suggested that the Westminster Parliament would cease to exist. The only thing at question is what its jurisdiction will be. And 2014 has not been set, the date of the referendum along with the precise wording of the question that will be posed is exactly where the active argument is at.

That's why I said current Westminster Parliament. If Scotland secedes, presumably they would no longer be represented in Westminster. This would solve the West Lothian problem, as least as it involves Scottish MPs voting on legislation for England and Wales. I'm not sure how this whole thing might involve Northern Ireland. In the more extreme case, the Westminster Parliament would only legislate for England and Wales. This would essentially solve the problem external interests interfering with legislation for England and Wales. I don't think Wales is likely to want more autonomy than it already has. What do you think?

I'd also like your opinion on the status of the United Kingdom if Scotland secedes. The UK was created by the Act of Union between England and Scotland in 1707. If Scotland secedes, would there be a legal basis for the existence of the UK? I'm asking hypothetically assuming complete independence for Scotland. It seems that either independence or the status quo is the only choice the present Tory government is willing to allow at this point in time.

 

[Ken Natton]

If I remember correctly, you are not British are you SW VandeCarr? Believe me I quite accept that does not disqualify you from commenting on this situation, indeed it means that you have a level of dispassion in your viewpoint that is impossible for me. For my part, I am very definitely English – I was born and brought up in England, and my identity is English. But my mother is Scottish. She was born and brought up in Edinburgh, and as a youngster I was a regular visitor to Edinburgh, a city for which I retain a great affection. From this, you can perhaps understand why my strong feeling is for the survival of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Like most people though, and with something of a heavy heart, I recognise and accept the pointlessness and lack of constructiveness in any attempt to force the Scottish people to remain part of the UK if they really are determined to leave it. The arguments are age-old and wrapped up deeply in the history. I don’t know why you think that the Welsh are less nationalistic than the Scottish, the Welsh Nationalist Party (Plaid Cymru) has as long a history and is no less vocal. They have not yet gained a majority in the Welsh parliament equivalent to that currently enjoyed by the Scottish Nationalist Party is the Scottish Parliament, but it is hopelessly simplistic to suppose that to be an indication of less nationalist fervour in Wales than in Scotland. Some level of pragmatism does come into play at the ballot box which does not necessarily reflect what people are really feeling about their national identities. In any case, the very fact that the SNP gained the majority that it did absolutely does indicate that a referendum result in line with their vision is a real possibility, and thus so is the break-up of the United Kingdom. The possibility that such an event would lead to a similar result in Wales in very real. Of course the situation is Northern Ireland is much more complex. The protestants of Northern Ireland still perceive a real danger of coming under the control of a Catholic dominated government of all Ireland and see continued membership of the United Kingdom as their best protection against such an eventuality. And the active conflict in British politics relating to our membership of the European Union and the prospect of our becoming a member of Eurozone is a further complication to all of this. My feeling is that the end of the United Kingdom will be a real pity. But one clear lesson of history is that nations, like all living things, have finite lifetimes.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I don’t know why you think that the Welsh are less nationalistic than the Scottish, the Welsh Nationalist Party (Plaid Cymru) has as long a history and is no less vocal. They have not yet gained a majority in the Welsh parliament equivalent to that currently enjoyed by the Scottish Nationalist Party is the Scottish Parliament, but it is hopelessly simplistic to suppose that to be an indication of less nationalist fervour in Wales than in Scotland. Some level of pragmatism does come into play at the ballot box which does not necessarily reflect what people are really feeling about their national identities. In any case, the very fact that the SNP gained the majority that it did absolutely does indicate that a referendum result in line with their vision is a real possibility, and thus so is the break-up of the United Kingdom. The possibility that such an event would lead to a similar result in Wales in very real.

Well as you say, I'm not British, but I'm not really "dispassionate". I hope that things turn out to the best advantage of all citizens of the UK but I have my doubts. I'm particularly surprised about Wales. I'm not surprised there would be a small minority that felt that way (probably many of those that can actually speak Welch?). But, as far as I know, Wales has never been an independent state. I believe the Welch tribes came under English rule in the 1300s.To think that Wales could be a viable prosperous independent state seems rather strange. A Welsh seat in the UN, a Welsh Army, Navy, Airforce, foreign embassies, etc?? Frankly, of the four constituent parts of the UK, only England has a good chance of prospering as an independent state with all the trappings of a significant power IMO. You could argue for Scotland, but in terms of the size of its population and economy, it is dwarfed by England. I think this is the strategy of the Cameron government. A simple choice: independence or status quo and a solution to the West Lothian problem in favor of England. Let the would be nation states understand what it will be like going it alone. What do you think?

EDIT: Another thing: What will these would be nation states do for a currency? They could issue their own or join the euro zone. Hmmm.

 

[AlephZero]

To think that Wales could be a viable prosperous independent state seems rather strange. A Welsh seat in the UN, a Welsh Army, Navy, Airforce, foreign embassies, etc??

Wales has a a population of 3m. That's bigger than Latvia, Estonia, Macedonia, etc in the EU and nearly 10 times as big as Iceland. What's the size problem?

The Welsh have always been an independent minded bunch. It took about 250 years for the English to get from "officially" defeating them militarily, to formally agreeing a Union!

EDIT: Another thing: What will these would be nation states do for a currency? They could issue their own or join the euro zone. Hmmm.

That's one that Alec Salmond prefers not to talk about. Scotland can't have genuine economic independence from England with a common currency and therefore common monetary policy. But there might not be a Euro for to Scotland join by the time that question arises...

 

[cristo]

For once, I think I'm on the side of David Cameron. All Salmond ever bangs on about is Scottish independence, and how the English are blocking it. Well, if you care about it that much, Mr Salmond, let's have the people decide. Let's put it to a referendum, preferably one in which all people in the UK can vote (since it will affect us too!).

There should be two options: full independence, or to be united back into the UK and powers sent back to Westminster. The thing that pisses me off the most about the Scots is their view on tuition fees for students. Higher education in Scotland is free if you're Scottish. Due to EU law, they were forced to make it free for all other EU citizens, since you cannot be biased towards those of your own country. However, since the UK is a country and both England and Scotland are part of it, the EU will not rule on domestic issues, despite the fact that the English are being treated illegally.

You can see Salmond is close to running scared, as he wants three options in the referendum: independence, no independence, or 'full devolution', which essentially means that the Scots will leech off the rest of the country, yet not be bound by the laws. The reason this referendum will not happen, or it won't happen in the timeframe people are suggesting, is that when it does, and the people vote to stay in the union, the SNP will collapse and Salmond will have to disappear.

I guess you can tell from this what my vote would be!

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Wales has a a population of 3m. That's bigger than Latvia, Estonia, Macedonia, etc in the EU and nearly 10 times as big as Iceland. What's the size problem?

There are a lot of small independent nation states in the world. They usually have a long tradition of fending for themselves. Over the centuries, they have developed trading relations, alliances, and the national means to produce goods and services for trade and domestic consumption. Many also have valuable natural resources which can be the basis of a prosperous economy. It's a learning curve. The USA nearly went broke in its early years after independence (and may still go broke). The Republic of Texas (1835-1845) never made it at all. Scotland has oil and a well educated population, but it will need a lot of cooperation from England to develop it's export trade, defense arrangements, a worldwide diplomatic network, etc. Any exclusive claim on the North Sea oil will be challenged by England because the treaty involved was negotiated by the UK. Wales is in a much less advantageous position than Scotland. Perhaps it can train a marine corps to land on the Isle of Man and take over that Crown Dependency's banks which are filled with foreign money seeking a tax haven. Wales might try to become a tax haven itself, but those Manx people have earned the trust of their customers based on years of experience.

 

[Ken Natton]

... as far as I know, Wales has never been an independent state. I believe the Welch tribes came under English rule in the 1300s.

Not losing site of the fact that this is primarily a discussion of the modern politics of the possibility of Scotland voting for independence and how that may lead to the further break-up of the United Kingdom, in answer to your post #10, SW VandeCarr, a few notes on the history:

Before the Romans, Britain was populated by the peoples we now refer to as the ancient Britons, the dominant ethnic group of which were the Celtic. But it was really after the Romans left to be replaced by the northern Germanic Angles and Saxons that the Celtic tended to get pushed to the extremities of Britain. And it was these Anglo Saxons that applied to them the term Welsh, meaning in old German ‘alien people’, the irony being that they were actually the indigenous people and it was the Anglo Saxons who were the invaders. The Welsh people’s name for themselves ‘Cymru’ means, in Gaelic, something like ‘the fellowship’. And the ancient county of England called Cumbria has a common etymology with Cymru, it is essentially the same term with the same meaning. Because you see, at that time, the Welsh people were not confined to that area of land which, today, we know as Wales. In fact, their largest and longest surviving kingdom was in the southern part of modern Scotland, centred on the city that today, we know as Dumbarton. As you said, it was not until something like 1300 that the area of land that we call Wales gained that particular label.

In more recent times, because parts of rural Wales were more rugged and wild than anything you found in England, there became a point when it was quite common for wealthier English people to own holiday homes in parts of Wales. In the 1970s there were frequent arson attacks against these holiday homes from the more extremist Welsh nationalists. Thankfully, that kind of incident is not so common now, but you can perhaps see that there is some historically founded strength of feeling to Welsh nationalism that a modern assessment of their likely place in the broader world might not take account of.

And I suppose the point is that, including several recent examples, history does tend to indicate that if Scotland does break away from the United Kingdom, it is highly likely that that will not be the end of it. There is a strong possibility that the remnant UK will then further factionalise. Indeed, it has been suggested by some that such a thing might not end with the independence of Wales and Northern Ireland. We could, potentially, even see the further factionalising of England itself. And the obvious fact that such a thing would be in the best interests of none of us might not make any difference…

 

[ferrelhadley]

There should be two options: full independence, or to be united back into the UK and powers sent back to Westminster.

What a bizarre opinion.

Why should devolved powers go back to Westminister? Scotland has a different legal system to England, why should English MPs be imposing laws on Scotland? Other than to treat the country as little more than a laboratory for their latest wheezes like Poll Tax was.

As for devomax, that was the unionists plan for Scotland. A plan Cameron originally backed until his cack handed effort to intervene at the start of the month.

Its people like you who regard Scotland as little more than a subservient colony who are driving the push for independence.

 

[MarcoD]

Before the Romans, Britain was populated by the peoples we now refer to as the ancient Britons, the dominant ethnic group of which were the Celtic. But it was really after the Romans left to be replaced by the northern Germanic Angles and Saxons that the Celtic tended to get pushed to the extremities of Britain. And it was these Anglo Saxons that applied to them the term Welsh, meaning in old German ‘alien people’, the irony being that they were actually the indigenous people and it was the Anglo Saxons who were the invaders. The Welsh people’s name for themselves ‘Cymru’ means, in Gaelic, something like ‘the fellowship’. And the ancient county of England called Cumbria has a common etymology with Cymru, it is essentially the same term with the same meaning. Because you see, at that time, the Welsh people were not confined to that area of land which, today, we know as Wales. In fact, their largest and longest surviving kingdom was in the southern part of modern Scotland, centred on the city that today, we know as Dumbarton. As you said, it was not until something like 1300 that the area of land that we call Wales gained that particular label.

The odd thing of Europe: People still relate to events which happened several millennia ago.

 

[Ken Natton]

The odd thing of Europe: People still relate to events which happened several millennia ago.

Huh. So let me understand MarcoD, history is not taught in non-European schools and colleges?

Okay. Let’s engage with your comment in a little more positive vein. The truth is, there is some merit in the viewpoint you appear to advocate. Let’s put it in the context of the subject of this thread. When the Scottish people come to vote on this referendum on independence, and if my doom saying proves to be correct and it is followed hard-upon by a similar vote in Wales, when the Welsh people are faced with a similar question, they should all put the past behind them, and base their judgement of how to vote purely on the basis of the question of what lies in their own best interests today. Put like that, it seems obvious that your dismissal of obsession with the past has merit. Of course that is what they should do. Except that the human (not just European) reality is that the past keeps getting in the way.

It is as much a human thing as is the need for food and shelter to ask the very simple and basic question, how did we get to here? If there are no historians searching for evidence based answers to that question, it tends to get answered by myth and legend. In much the same way as science provides answers that roll back superstition and belief in the supernatural, and replace it with rational, evidence based explanations, so serious history too is about honouring what actually happened. And yes, sometimes, events from the distant past have a tendency to cloud the active, vital issue of today. But the answer is not to dismiss the past. The answer is a quieter, more rational analysis of the past. The answer is a proper, deeper understanding of the past. Just as crackpottery, as it is called here, flourishes where there is ignorance of science, so distortion and manipulation of accounts of past events occur where there is no serious history.

And another human reality that goes way beyond Europe is that for many people, the accurate historical accounts offer deep and profound fascination.

 

[ferrelhadley]

The odd thing of Europe: People still relate to events which happened several millennia ago.

Because we do not live on land expropriated only a couple of hundred years ago...

 

[Ken Natton]

Because we do not live on land expropriated only a couple of hundred years ago...

...

...distortion and manipulation of accounts of past events occur where there is no serious history.

 

[MarcoD]

Huh. So let me understand MarcoD, history is not taught in non-European schools and colleges?

Of course history is taught, but from my perspective, the world is made out of individuals and most believes they hold are, when thinking about it, utterly absurd. A nation is a social construct, so it has some pragmatic value, but most ideas associated with it seem to fall in the 'romantic hogwash' category.

To put it to an extreme: ponder on those individuals from the Roman era. They were about half your size, had bad teeth, a foul breath, were disease ridden, almost completely illiterate, full of bigot ideas, and most of them were barely surviving. If people like that would move next to your house, you would be tempted to move out. I am clueless why I would relate to them?

 

[ThomasT]

I don't have any opinion on whether or not it's a good or bad thing for Scotland to become independent of the UK, or whether the the breakup of the UK is a good or bad thing. Only that it seems to me that contiguous political entities would seem to maximize their stability via common goals, and being, in some important senses, united. I think I can understand, given historical ethnic imperatives, why Scotland, Wales, Alabama, or any particular geographically circumscribed population, might desire a particular independence.

Thanks to Ken Natton for some interesting historical stuff that we aren't exposed to in American schools.

 

[ThomasT]

To put it to an extreme: ponder on those individuals from the Roman era. They were about half your size, had bad teeth, a foul breath, were disease ridden, almost completely illiterate, full of bigot ideas, and most of them were barely surviving. If people like that would move next to your house, you would be tempted to move out.

I'm not sure I understand your point, but I definitely agree with your statement.

 

[Ken Natton]

I'm not sure I understand your point, but I definitely agree with your statement.

As best I can understand it Thomas, his point appears to be that because our ancestors did not enjoy the same convenience of available health care as we do, we should despise them.

Whatever, I know I started it, but this defence of the value of history is now too far from the subject of this thread. So let me try to drag it back.

Believe me, I claim no particular insight into the thinking of those who advocate Scottish or Welsh independence, but one obvious difference between England on the one hand and Scotland and Wales on the other is the balance of political opinion. We had eighteen years of Conservative government from 1979 to 1997 and there can be no doubt that independent Scotland and Wales would have had governance much further to the left. It has not always been the case, but there are currently no Conservative MPs in either Scotland or Wales. That does not mean that there are no Conservative supporters in those two countries, but they are very much in the minority. So much in the minority that it would seem that neither Scotland or Wales would ever have an essentially right-wing government. A government of England alone would probably still fluctuate between right and left. You have to understand the large imbalance of population between the constituent countries of the UK to see why this would be the case.

And on the matter of independent Scotland’s and independent Wales’s position in the wider world, there is the whole business of membership of the European Union. Despite the obvious contradiction with the fundamental notion of nationalism, the way that both The Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru deal with the argument that countries with such a small population would suffer significant disadvantage on the world stage, is to advocate membership of the European Union, independent of the UK. As a notion, it might well have some merit. But if the populations of Wales and Scotland feel themselves marginalised within the UK, there has to be some question marks over their likely contentedness with governance from Brussels.

 

[ThomasT]

Thanks Ken, I'm going to study and think about your statements. At this time I can't pretend to understand the politics of the UK. I don't really understand the politics of the US and I've lived here for over 60 years.

 

[MarcoD]

I'm not sure I understand your point, but I definitely agree with your statement.

To Thomas and Ken. No I agitate against some 'romantic' historical perspectives of Nationalists. Like 'We the X fought off them Y for centuries.' Those romantic perspectives are often popularized in movies.

But if you look at the facts, it is chance you're part of a certain population, a nation is a social construct, it is highly debatable what kind of relation people have -or should have- with something as abstract as a nation, your genes probably have been that much diluted that it makes no sense to really 'establish' a relation with historical figures or individuals, you have little responsibility wrt to the accounts of other individuals, and if you would look at those particular historical individuals, you probably wouldn't particularly like them.

Most of the feeling or rhetoric is hogwash. It just appeals to people who like to play 'megalomaniac' games on world maps.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

And on the matter of independent Scotland’s and independent Wales’s position in the wider world, there is the whole business of membership of the European Union. Despite the obvious contradiction with the fundamental notion of nationalism, the way that both The Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru deal with the argument that countries with such a small population would suffer significant disadvantage on the world stage, is to advocate membership of the European Union, independent of the UK. As a notion, it might well have some merit. But if the populations of Wales and Scotland feel themselves marginalised within the UK, there has to be some question marks over their likely contentedness with governance from Brussels.

Instead of governance from Brussels, there is more and more talk of de facto governance from Berlin. Germany is really driving the issue as the country with the deepest pockets and a public which is increasingly unwilling to lend money to troubled economies. As such, Germany, acting thorough the EU, is in a position to influence the European Central Bank (ECB) and IMF to impose unpopular, but probably necessary fiscal measures. Germany is pushing for more centralization of powers in the EU.

It's not clear that Scotland and particularly Wales would be immediately admitted to the EU. Why should they be? How would their credit be evaluated? There are still countries like Turkey which have long been waiting to join and whose economic record in recent years has been fairly good; certainly better than Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Turkey's interest in EU membership has correspondingly declined. That doesn't mean that the EU would be ready to welcome Scotland and Wales as members, especially if, like the Cameron government, they're not very willing to help the PIIGS.

 

[Ken Natton]

It's not clear that Scotland and particularly Wales would be immediately admitted to the EU. Why should they be? How would their credit be evaluated? There are still countries like Turkey which have long been waiting to join and whose economic record in recent years has been fairly good; certainly better than Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Turkey's interest in EU membership has correspondingly declined. That doesn't mean that the EU would be ready to welcome Scotland and Wales as members, especially if, like the Cameron government, they're not very willing to help the PIIGS.

Hmmm. It’s a very telling point, SW VandeCarr, and one that, I confess, I hadn’t considered. Perhaps the nationalist parties are also guilty of assuming that, as former members of the UK, they would be shoe-ins for independent membership of the EU. Even if membership was, eventually, granted to them, the length of time it would take to get to that point might present genuine difficulties for them as independent nations. Exactly what their trading position would be in the interim, I really don’t know. I can see this being a strong line of argument for those campaigning for a ‘No’ vote in referenda on independence. My, I confess slightly cynical feeling has always been that the whole line of argument by the nationalists of independent membership of the European Union has been a matter of political convenience, rather than genuine conviction. As I previously suggested, the whole idea is entirely contrary to nationalist principles. It would be up to those campaigning for the no vote to expose that particular hypocrisy.

 

[Vagn]

Instead of governance from Brussels, there is more and more talk of de facto governance from Berlin. Germany is really driving the issue as the country with the deepest pockets and a public which is increasingly unwilling to lend money to troubled economies. As such, Germany, acting thorough the EU, is in a position to influence the European Central Bank (ECB) and IMF to impose unpopular, but probably necessary fiscal measures. Germany is pushing for more centralization of powers in the EU.

It's not clear that Scotland and particularly Wales would be immediately admitted to the EU. Why should they be? How would their credit be evaluated? There are still countries like Turkey which have long been waiting to join and whose economic record in recent years has been fairly good; certainly better than Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Turkey's interest in EU membership has correspondingly declined. That doesn't mean that the EU would be ready to welcome Scotland and Wales as members, especially if, like the Cameron government, they're not very willing to help the PIIGS.

There's also, on this issue, the fact that other major EU countries have their own independence movements, Spain in particular has threatened to veto any bid for an independent Scotland being admitted into the EU, as it fears that it would strengthen the Catalonian and Basque nationalist movements. France could also be affected as they have their own Basque and Corsican movements.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eto-over-scotlands-eu-membership-6292846.html

 

[ThomasT]

To Thomas and Ken. No I agitate against some 'romantic' historical perspectives of Nationalists. Like 'We the X fought off them Y for centuries.' Those romantic perspectives are often popularized in movies.

But if you look at the facts, it is chance you're part of a certain population, a nation is a social construct, it is highly debatable what kind of relation people have -or should have- with something as abstract as a nation, your genes probably have been that much diluted that it makes no sense to really 'establish' a relation with historical figures or individuals, you have little responsibility wrt to the accounts of other individuals, and if you would look at those particular historical individuals, you probably wouldn't particularly like them.

Most of the feeling or rhetoric is hogwash. It just appeals to people who like to play 'megalomaniac' games on world maps.

I agree with the essence of your points, which I take to be the view that unmitigated nationalism, and the appeal to historical conflicts and separations, only perpetuates divisiveness to no good purpose. On the other hand, if the creation of an independent political entitiy would benefit the lot of the common people involved, then it would seem to be a good thing to pursue.

Wrt the big picture, mankind is divided enough, too much, imho. Eg., it really annoys me that commentators on, say, Olympic events, tennis tournaments, etc., are constantly pointing out a competitor's home country. Who cares? These competitions shouldn't, imho, be translated into national competitions. We are, all of us, citizens of the world, and it would be truly wonderful if we developed and embraced some common goals for the good of humanity ... not just the interests of one nation or another.

 

[Astronuc]

Why the world should care about Scottish independence

LONDON (Reuters) - An opinion poll showing Scottish independence campaigners have a slim lead nine days before a crucial referendum has highlighted reasons for the wider world and investors to pay heed to the Sept. 18 vote, which could see Britain lose 5.3 million Scots.

Foreign governments and financial markets had long assumed Scots would view independence from the United Kingdom as too risky a leap but the sudden swing, confirmed by another survey showing the two camps neck-and-neck, has exploded such complacency.

It seems to be close.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-world-care-scottish-independence-105618840--finance.html

 

[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.