Scottish Independence - What say you?

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 5:43pm #1

So I'm sure you're all familiar now with the ongoing issue surrounding an upcoming referendum for Scottish independence. I'm trying to gauge the general vibe of the Irish public.

During the last Scottish national elections, the Scottish National Party won a remarkable majority ahead of the traditional favourites, The Labour Party. Alex Salmond, the leader of the SNP and David Cameron have been at odds over the specifics of the referendum - but nevertheless - it will occur (likely August 2014).

It's important to note that Scotland returned only one Tory MP in the last general elections, and only about 10% or thereabouts in the Scottish national elections. But yet - Scotland is still under the control of the Conservative Party - and this seems to be a contentious issue.

"The days of Tory PMs telling Scotland what to do are over" - Alex Salmond.

So what say AH? Would you in principle favour an independent Scottish state, where the Scottish people alone would control all of their affairs - or would you prefer Scotland to remain in the Union, where some important matters (fiscal affairs and foreign policy) are still controlled through Westminster?

Fear Uladh · 13-01-2012 5:46pm

Whatever the people want to be honest.

I would love to see how scotland govern themselves after independence, would they join the euro or keep the sterling?

Kevok · 13-01-2012 5:47pm

Why is there no "I'm not Scottish it doesn't matter what I think" option?

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 5:48pm

Fear Uladh wrote: »

Whatever the people want to be honest.

Yes of course, it will ultimately be down to the Scottish people. I'm just trying to see what AH would vote on (if they hypothetically lived in Scotland).

Duggy747 · 13-01-2012 5:49pm

If Trainspotting taught me anything it's that they should really get their toilet-cleaning abilities up to scratch.

Fear Uladh · 13-01-2012 5:49pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Yes of course, it will ultimately be down to the Scottish people. I'm just trying to see what AH would vote on (if they hypothetically lived in Scotland).

My own individual vote would be for Independence.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 13-01-2012 5:50pm

Don't they already have some form of Home Rule? I suppose the natural progression would be independence if the majority want that of course.

Dravokivich · 13-01-2012 5:50pm

dlofnep wrote: »

"The days of Tory PMs telling Scotland what to do are over" - Alex Salmond.

They should vote Labour so.

CreepingDeath · 13-01-2012 5:51pm

While they might want independence, I don't know if Scotland has the financial stability/security to go it alone.

Where's the braveheart half blue/half white emoticon when you need it?

Mr Benevolent · 13-01-2012 5:51pm

It's ridiculous, it'd like Munster declaring their independence. The economy would be ruined, the currency would have to be changed, hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, and all because of a bit of PR and misplaced national pride.

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 5:54pm

Confab wrote: »

It's ridiculous, it'd like Munster declaring their independence.

Munster is not a country with a devolved parliament. Scotland is. I don't really think there's anything ridiculous about simply wanting to determine all of your own political affairs from your national parliament, rather than one 800 miles away in London, which is Governed in majority by a political party which returned only one MP in Scotland.

Gilldog · 13-01-2012 5:57pm

CreepingDeath wrote: »

While they might want independence, I don't know if Scotland has the financial stability/security to go it alone.

Actually, with ownership of the North Sea oil, an independant Scotland would be in a very good financial position. I heard someone on radio a few days ago estimating it to be about about 25 billion barrels worth.

I say go for it ye mad Scots!

Chips Lovell · 13-01-2012 5:59pm

Even the SNP doesn't favour independence. Salmond is pushing for maximum devolution instead.

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 5:59pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

They should vote Labour so.

They did, in the general elections.

Genghiz Cohen · 13-01-2012 5:59pm

FREEEEEEEDDDDDOOOOOOMMMMMMMM

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 6:00pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Even the SNP doesn't favour independence. Salmond is pushing for maximum devolution instead.

That's simply inaccurate. Of course they are pushing for independence. 'Devo-max' is a back-up plan one would assume if they fail to receive full independence.

Ellis Dee · 13-01-2012 6:06pm

I wrote (in jest) in a comment in a Daily Torygraph blog that it would all end in tears - with nothing much more than some oil and gas, hydroelectricity, a bit of tourism potential, the whisky industry, some fishing grounds and a few other things to sustain an independent Scotland - and that the place could easily end up another basket case like Norway ---:):)

Can't understand why a lot of Scottish contributors gave me "likes".:rolleyes:

Chips Lovell · 13-01-2012 6:08pm

dlofnep wrote: »

That's simply inaccurate. Of course they are pushing for independence. 'Devo-max' is a back-up plan one would assume if they fail to receive full independence.

Salmond knows Scots won't vote for full independence. Why do you think he's pushing for the devo-max option to be included rather than Cameron's straight yes or no?

mattjack · 13-01-2012 6:09pm

I ,for one will be applying for citizenship, courtesy of my Scottish grandfather.I'm sharpening my claymore as we speak and my kilt is in the wash.Merkel and Sarkozy won't get me.

Chuck Stone · 13-01-2012 6:09pm

Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare tbh. Will there be border surfing like we have here?

Will they have different VAT and income tax rates? What about the stuff that the royals own and military bases?

What's in it for the average Scotch person?

yeah Scottish I know.

Pissmire · 13-01-2012 6:14pm

What have the Brits ever done for us?

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 6:14pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Salmond knows Scots won't vote for full independence. Why do you think he's pushing for the devo-max option to be included rather than Cameron's straight yes or no?

As a back-up? It doesn't mean Salmond doesn't aspire to see independence in it's entirety.

I am pie · 13-01-2012 6:14pm

North Sea Oil is running out, conservative estimates would state that it is 75% used having hit a peak in 1999. (I took this from Wikipedia admittedly!) Oil and Gas is not going to sustain Scottish independence in the long run, possibly it won't be a source of funding beyond 20-30 years. The Scottish Banking sector is part owned by the UK gov't and requires govt funding, will the scottish executive pick up the tab on this one ?

It would be interesting alone to see how much the NHS in Scotland costs the UK tax payer, for all public sector outlay. I have not yet seen cold hard figures to support full independence and i suspect they do not exist.

Heart says yes, fiscal reality says not now.

Morlar · 13-01-2012 6:16pm

Southern Irish unionists must be loving this.

Flincher · 13-01-2012 6:17pm

Kevok wrote: »

Why is there no "I'm not Scottish it doesn't matter what I think" option?

There is. It's so easy to use. Just click anywhere, anywhere at all on the whole internet, and it'll get to us. And then just move along to the next thread if you've no opinion on this.

They already have a functioning parliament, so I think the major issues will be foreign policy. It'll be interesting to see if they take a different stance to the rest of the UK on major issues, and how that would go down in Westminster.

stovelid · 13-01-2012 6:18pm

Don't really know much about it and I'm not the sort to blindly support independance movements just because they involve England but if the majority of Scottish people want it and it is acheived by peaceful means, why not?

TiGeR KiNgS · 13-01-2012 6:20pm

I'm against this because I don't want Scotland to have a competitive corporation tax rate.

44leto · 13-01-2012 6:21pm

I as an Irish man says who the fukc am I to say to a Jock you should leave the union.

But as a rule I hate nationalism and nationalists.

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 6:22pm

TiGeR KiNgS wrote: »

I'm against this because I don't want Scotland to have a competitive corporation tax rate.

Well - Westminster was already taking about giving powers to lower it in Scotland and in the north, so this wouldn't really change that.

amacachi · 13-01-2012 6:22pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Munster is not a country with a devolved parliament. Scotland is. I don't really think there's anything ridiculous about simply wanting to determine all of your own political affairs from your national parliament, rather than one 800 miles away in London, which is Governed in majority by a political party which returned only one MP in Scotland.

If (as many would like) county and city councils were abolished and larger local authorities with more power replaced them would it be coo' if the newly created areas wanted independence?

As far as I can tell Cameron was simply stating a matter of fact, that Scotland can't legally simply secede from the Union.

Cavehill Red · 13-01-2012 6:24pm

The less of these islands run from Westminster the better in my opinion.

I believe in the Scottish (and English and Welsh) right to self-determination, and I support anything that undermines the union, since it is used as a legal shield to enforce British rule in Ireland.

Let Scotland be free, and it hastens the day that the North of Ireland will be too. Maybe even the North of England too, who knows? Roll on the end of the imperial racket that is UK inc.

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 6:24pm

44leto wrote: »

I as an Irish man says who the fukc am I to say to a Jock you should leave the union.

But as a rule I hate nationalism and nationalists.

It's not a question of nationalism, it's a questioning of being able to control your own political and economic affairs.

But if you oppose nationalism - you also oppose Cameron who is a British nationalist. A point of note.

Ellis Dee · 13-01-2012 6:25pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Salmond knows Scots won't vote for full independence. Why do you think he's pushing for the devo-max option to be included rather than Cameron's straight yes or no?

Alec Salmond is an admirably astute politician and his wanting to include the third (devo-max) option is a master stroke and a brilliant example of long-term vision. It brings Scotland that much closer to full independence and allows many or most of the institutions of a sovereign state to be put in place, developed and honed so that the country is well equipped with the instruments it needs to respond to changes beyond its borders when the need arises. The more the Tories and the other unionist parties try to remove that third option from the referendum, the more determined the Scots will become to go their own way.:)

As a student of history, one parallel that comes to mind is that of Finland, which was part of Russia until 1917. However, it had considerable autonomy, even its own currency, and all of the apparatus of state that was needed when the Czar's empire finally collapsed. Finland was able to declare itself independent almost immediately and successfully defend that independence against the attacks of the Bolsheviks and their local allies. :cool:

The same will apply in a quasi-independent Scotland when, as I suspect will inevitably happen, the UK collapses under the sheer weight of its own contradictions.;)

Given that there are now more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs, Salmond is right when he says the days when the Tories could dictate to the Scots are over and done with.:)

mongdesade · 13-01-2012 6:34pm

Unfortunately I believe if Scotland gained full independence, the next step, much like our own island in the 20's would be civil war, two tribes with divided loyalties, one to Rome the other to the Crown...
Thoughts ?

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 6:35pm

amacachi wrote: »

If (as many would like) county and city councils were abolished and larger local authorities with more power replaced them would it be coo' if the newly created areas wanted independence?

If there was logic to it - it would be cool. But your arbitrary, abstract nation doesn't seem logical. There is certainly logic behind an independent Scotland however. It is a historic nation, with it's own devolved parliament (which is governed very well).

I do love these hypothetical independence scenarios. Do you oppose the principle of independence? Would you have opposed the breakup of the USSR for example?

amacachi wrote: »

As far as I can tell Cameron was simply stating a matter of fact, that Scotland can't legally simply secede from the Union.

I doubt the Scots care, and if they vote for independence - then they will have a mandate to do so, regardless of what Cameron believes.

Chips Lovell · 13-01-2012 6:36pm

dlofnep wrote: »

As a back-up? It doesn't mean Salmond doesn't aspire to see independence in it's entirety.

He knows that's an unrealistic aspiration though. Even around 60% of his own voters don't favour it.

I don't really understand the push toward maximum devolution by the Scots though. Scotland is a net beneficiary from the UK, so they'd be worse off if they had finance themselves.

It's not like the Catalans, who're pushing for something very similar, who are net contributors to the Spanish exchequer.

Cavehill Red · 13-01-2012 6:38pm

mongdesade wrote: »

Unfortunately I believe if Scotland gained full independence, the next step, much like our own island in the 20's would be civil war, two tribes with divided loyalties, one to Rome the other to the Crown...
Thoughts ?

Little chance of that. A more concerning parallel might be with Ireland post-independence in the 40s to 60s, small, isolated, and dominated by a single political party that decays into venal, self-serving corruption.

dlofnep · 13-01-2012 6:41pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

He knows that's an unrealistic aspiration though. Even around 60% of his own voters don't favour it.

His goal is to make it a reality. Whether it is possible to achieve, that's a different question.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I don't really understand the push toward maximum devolution by the Scots though. Scotland is a net beneficiary from the UK, so they'd be worse off if they had finance themselves

They will have their own tax raising powers, and would have the ability to entice investment through a lowering corporation tax. Also, it is to be noted - that the figures that cite Scotland as a net beneficiary, do not take into account the total oil revenues, but rather the per capita or geographical proportional revenues.

Here is one report: http://www.scotsman.com/news/north_sea_oil_revenues_would_put_scotland_in_the_black_report_1_476785

The economic argument of course isn't the only argument. The ability to determine your own affairs is a powerful motivator, especially when you are under Governance of the Tory party, which returned only one MP in Scotland.

Pissmire · 13-01-2012 6:42pm

I think a discussion on the subject on an Irish based forum is fine, but voting on it just isn't right.

TiGeR KiNgS · 13-01-2012 6:43pm

dlofnep wrote: »

Well - Westminster was already taking about giving powers to lower it in Scotland and in the north, so this wouldn't really change that.

No, Only for Northern Ireland as a special case to compete with the land border and that 30% of the Northern economy is the public sector. The tax cut would incentive private investment.

If Scotland cut its corporation tax then companies would begin to move across the land border with England forcing a tax cut that the UK cant afford as they have a high debt to to GDP ratio right now.

ejmaztec · 13-01-2012 6:44pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare tbh. Will there be border surfing like we have here?

Will they have different VAT and income tax rates? What about the stuff that the royals own and military bases?

What's in it for the average Scotch person?

yeah Scottish I know.

What about the ones that prefer a pint of heavy?:P

Sneaky bugger

Chips Lovell · 13-01-2012 6:48pm

dlofnep wrote: »

They will have their own tax raising powers, and would have the ability to entice investment through a lowering corporation tax. Also, it is to be noted - that the figures that cite Scotland as a net beneficiary, do not take into account the total oil revenues, but rather the per capita or geographical proportional revenues.

Here is one report: http://www.scotsman.com/news/north_sea_oil_revenues_would_put_scotland_in_the_black_report_1_476785

Here's something a little more recent, that argues that even if Scotland get's the lion's share of oil (which seems unlikely), it'll still be running a deficit:

So, an independent Scotland would in fact be a long way from surplus. In 2009-10 its deficit, even assuming that it kept 91 per cent of North Sea revenues, would have stood at 11 per cent of GDP — the same as the figure for the UK as a whole.

What's more, even if Scotland did get Salmond's desired slice of the North Sea — which would comprise around one-fifth of its GDP — it would then be slave to oil and gas production, as well as volatility in their prices. That's all very well in good years like 2008-09, when North Sea revenues totalled £12.9 billion. But what happens if revenues drop to 1991-92 levels of just £0.6 billion? As Fraser's said before, ‘Scotland would swap rule from London for rule by OPEC’.

I'm pretty sure stuff like this is going to get a good airing if/when the campaign gets underway. People generally vote with their pockets.

ejmaztec · 13-01-2012 6:52pm

There will have to be an amicable division of the armed forces, so that Scotland gets all of the nuclear subs, a load of ships and a pile of aircraft.

Cavehill Red · 13-01-2012 6:53pm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Here's something a little more recent, that argues that even if Scotland get's the lion's share of oil (which seems unlikely), it'll still be running a deficit.

Pretty much every country runs a deficit, funded by state borrowing (bonds, etc) on the promise of future income (ie tomorrow's tax take.)

This in itself is no impediment to independence. Even the Torygraph has accepted that Scotland is likely to have no greater debt or deficit to income ratio than Britain currently has as a whole.

The Jammy dodger · 13-01-2012 6:53pm

I say it would cause an awful lot of harm to the peace process if the north sees the whole of Scotland getting their independence. There would be a lot of tantrums thrown around.

44leto · 13-01-2012 6:55pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It's not a question of nationalism, it's a questioning of being able to control your own political and economic affairs.

But if you oppose nationalism - you also oppose Cameron who is a British nationalist. A point of note.[/

Not really what David Cameron is, is a United Kingdom unionist. Would I be an Irish nationalist if I opposed, lets say, Corkonian independence. A point to note.

Belguim looks like it is splitting into 2 countries, although its none of my business, something in me, thinks that is a shame.

Almaviva · 13-01-2012 6:56pm

They should learn from Ireland's mistake.

Stop dreaming Scotland and appreciate a good thing when you have it.

LK_Dave · 13-01-2012 6:58pm

dlofnep wrote: »

"The days of Tory PMs telling Scotland what to do are over" - Alex Salmond.

When was the last time the Tories had a majority in Scotland? Its been a labour cesspit for years. Just look at the last PM they send down, Grodon Brown. With that calibre of politician, Scotland will end up more of an economic basket case than the Rep of Ireland is in half the time. But if that is what the people want, give it to them.

truthspeaker · 13-01-2012 6:59pm

Gilldog wrote: »

Actually, with ownership of the North Sea oil, an independant Scotland would be in a very good financial position. I heard someone on radio a few days ago estimating it to be about about 25 billion barrels worth.

I say go for it ye mad Scots!

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds, im sure northern Ireland will also be looking on with batted breath, I personally think the scotts and northern Ireland should be left to get on with it, England has held their hands for long enough.

amacachi · 13-01-2012 6:59pm

dlofnep wrote: »

If there was logic to it - it would be cool. But your arbitrary, abstract nation doesn't seem logical. There is certainly logic behind an independent Scotland however. It is a historic nation, with it's own devolved parliament (which is governed very well).

It's easy to govern well when being subsidised. The free college and better NHS in Scotland is a sore point which will be addressed.
Just out of interest, had Labour not given them their own parliament would that be a mark against why they should be independent? Quite frankly I don't give a **** about a flag or where the government makes its decisions, once I have the same rights as my neighbours and those closer to where the decisions are made. Scotland's had the best of both worlds for a while now, it would be most silly to bite the hand that feeds them.

I do love these hypothetical independence scenarios. Do you oppose the principle of independence? Would you have opposed the breakup of the USSR for example?

I believe in self-determination. SELF, not national.

I doubt the Scots care, and if they vote for independence - then they will have a mandate to do so, regardless of what Cameron believes.

I'm pretty sure that a fundamental alteration in the scale and make-up of a country becomes something of an international issue, especially when only one side of those involved follows the rules.

ejmaztec · 13-01-2012 7:03pm

Scotland's been bled dry for centuries by the sassenachs. The only things left are whisky, Scotch pies, deep-fried Mars bars and 5 litres of oil.

William Wallace would be turning in all his graves.:(

Scottish Independence - What say you?

Scottish Independence 391 votes

Comments