Scottish Independence - What say you?

KeithAFC

Then a United states of Europe..

Imagine that.

getz

the NHS in scotland is very strange,last time i was in hospital in glasgow everyone kept on talking to me in poems,as i said to the doctor,am i in a insanity ward ?no he said just the serious burns unit

Doc Ruby

Deleted User wrote: »

+1

A version of the (old)EEC will likely replace the EU and we'll just have a bloc of independent trading nations.

I don't see it happening to be honest, theres just too much money and power at stake. Even if the eurozone falls apart, they'll be back within a month.

woodoo

bwatson wrote: »

I find it quite funny to see how so many Irish think they have a special connection with Scotland - the nation where you will find more anti-irish feeling than in any other.

There is alot of truth in that. But i suspect that is mainly from a British/Rangers/Unionist point of view, where they have no love for the Irish. Your average Scot doesn't really mind Irish people and from those with Irish heritage the feelings are quite warm. I have spent alot of time in Scotland.

I agree though outside those with Irish heritage there is no special connection between Ireland and Scotland. That is a myth.

bwatson wrote: »

All fantasy anyway, as Scottish independence simply will not happen and most here know it.

Not this time round maybe

Richard

woodoo wrote: »

There is alot of truth in that. But i suspect that is mainly from a British/Rangers/Unionist point of view, where they have no love for the Irish. Your average Scot doesn't really mind Irish people and from those with Irish heritage the feelings are quite warm. I have spent alot of time in Scotland.

I agree though outside those with Irish heritage there is no special connection between Ireland and Scotland. That is a myth.

Depends how far back you go. Dalriada anyone?

al28283

None of my business really

questionmark?

Confab wrote: »

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.

Scotland is not like Munster. It is a country that makes up part of the state of the UK.

If that's what the people want then let them have it, however it would be a bit of a disaster as they receive huge subsidies English taxpayers.

They wouldn't necessarily have to change their currency. There is plenty of countries around the world that have no currency of their own(see Montenegro). The downside is they would have no say on the value of it.


EDIT: One thousand posts :P

Capt'n Midnight

Confab wrote: »

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.

Technically speaking they already have their own currency and it isn't accepted everywhere in London, also it get a lower exchange rate abroad.

To answer this querstion, we must refer to that great leveller, the Pissup Equation.

Scotland in the union-no extra piss-ups

Scotland becomes independent.-One great big piss-up on the day, plus a yearly piss-up on the anniversary of that day.

On piss-ups, union < independence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLmgBOYWi1Y

I favour independence.

ejmaztec

getz wrote: »

what the SNP are doing is now damaging their economy,big business is no longer looking to invest north of the border,westminster is also reluctant to invest long term, on moving to independance scotland would lose jobs , the UK spends and employs more goverment workers than northern ireland and wales,military bases would be moved and large towns and services that depend on them would close, as foreign citizens scotland would have to have its own passports police and army ,but i think this will never happen as the economy and jobs starts to collapse from the lack of investment ,realism will kick in.

Scotland would keep all of the military bases, and would hang onto Faslane and the nuclear subs, just in case the English get any bright ideas:P

A Dub in Glasgo

philologos wrote: »

I'm against it. Scotland should remain a part of the union as far as I see it. Scotland benefits economically from it's relationship with the rest of the UK, indeed, not just benefits, but is wholly dependant on it. I wouldn't anticipate it weathering too well through an economic crisis on its own.

Scotland is not wholly dependent on the union

David Cameron has played a good game on the subject this week I think, putting pressure on Alex Salmond to agree on a date within 18 months rather than constantly putting it off. It seems that Salmond may be afraid that he won't get the result he likes and as a result the subject wouldn't appear again for at least a decade.

Are you for real? Cameron (I think it was Osborne who nudged Cameron) walked into quicksand with his antics

Immaculate Pasta

KeithAFC wrote: »

Then a United states of Europe..

Imagine that.

But that's what you want though Keith surely? Countries uniting and being loyal. And not surrendering. Countries being part of a union and the population becoming unionists and being loyal to that union. People being loyal to a higher power and wanting to be part of a union. As well as marching about how great it is to be in a union and not surrendering. And did I forget to mention unionism, loyalism, no surrender and lots of marching?

:cool:

philologos

Scotland is wholly dependant on the union, in that they take more money from the UK Exchequer than they put in. If they were independent, they would be without that extra money from Westminster to keep things ticking, as well as public-sector jobs. Public sector employment accounted for 24% of the workforce in 2011. Scotland is heavily dependent on the UK government for its defensive purposes also.

I think some people are running away with logic here. They think that because Ireland is independent that Scotland should be too. This is an entirely different situation though, and just because Ireland might be better off as a republic, it doesn't mean that it would be better for Scotland to be a republic separate from the UK. Joining the Eurozone and the EU right now is also a ridiculous idea, given that both are being undermined on a daily basis.

I'm for real when I said that Cameron played a blinder last week by putting pressure on Salmond to put his money where his mouth is. Stop threatening independence and try act on it.

A Dub in Glasgo

philologos wrote: »

Scotland is wholly dependant on the union, in that they take more money from the UK Exchequer than they put in. If they were independent, they would be without that extra money from Westminster to keep things ticking, as well as public-sector jobs. Public sector employment accounted for 24% of the workforce in 2011. Scotland is heavily dependent on the UK government for its defensive purposes also.

Scotland is not wholly dependent on the Union. Can you back up your statements. Of course Scotland is dependent on the UK for defence considering they are part of the UK

I'm for real when I said that Cameron played a blinder last week by putting pressure on Salmond to put his money where his mouth is. Stop threatening independence and try act on it.

He may have played a blinder to his back benchers, he certainly did not play a blinder for the cause of unionism in Scotland!

philologos

Scotland were it to weather an economic crisis on its own without the rest of Britain would severely falter as far as I can tell with such a high dependence on public sector workers, and for as long as it receives economic support from Westminster. I doubt that Scotland could provide the same degree of defence as the UK can offer, given that if Scotland became independent all defensive property that exists including naval vessels, aircraft, etc would be the property of the rest of Britain.

Scotland if it joined the European Union would be obliged to join the Eurozone (as a result of the 1994 Maastrict Treaty which says all members which joined after would be required to join the Euro), which in my opinion is a sinking ship right now. Staying outside the European Union would also mean that they would be outside the free-trade area that exists within the European Union. The paradox that exists in that respect would mean that Scotland would be better off in terms of Britains place in the EU (not having to join the Euro since it joined in 1973, but yet being in the free-trade area with Europe).

Not to speak of providing welfare to the huge number unemployed, and other benefit recipients of on its own steam, including funding the health system on its own steam.

Although, I think it should be the ones proposing the change that should be showing that it is viable here.

Ellis Dee

Here's a link to an interesting editorial in today's Scotsman:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/cartoon/leader_comparing_scots_to_irish_a_dangerous_move_1_2056120

The sentiments in it clearly do not go down too well with the readers, as the comments after the editorial show. Clearly, many of the readers find the editorial rather bullying in tone, and my own feeling is that it will only strengthen Scottish resolve.

I also believe that a close look at all of the flows of finances and material benefits in both directions would reveal that in fact Scotland more than pays its way. Why, otherwise, would the ruling classes in England be so willing to hold on to the place?

Here's a very insightful article by one respected Scottish commentator who does not brown-tongue the Sassenachs. He is quite confident that Scotland is very much a viable proposition:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/hamish-mcrae/hamish-mcrae-of-course-scotland-can-stand-on-its-own-two-feet-and-heres-how-6289505.html

Commentators like Philologos should understand how absurd and also insulting they are when they dismiss such an admirable people as the Scots as mere denizens of some kind of reserve, where they are supported by outsiders. But if that's what it says in the scriptures ...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

A good example of the readers' comments on the Scotsman editorial:

"Was Mr Salmond comparing the violent struggle of the Irish to attain home rule? Read the article again and read his quotes carefully. He is merely trying to establish common ground in the fact that both the Scots and the Irish have been subjected to Westminster's less than benign diktats. Reading anything else into it is down to one's own interpretation. We are a small country of just over five million; England is many, many times bigger in population size, but, hey, as everyone knows, those pesky wee Scots are always throwing their weight around and bullying everyone around them. Get a life."

philologos

I'm not "dismissing" Scottish people. I'm confident that were this put to a referendum that the majority of them would vote to stay in the union. People in England would hold on to Scotland because they are a union, that's the way that Britain is and it works very well in practice. Likewise in terms of Wales.

Comparing Scotland with Ireland is silly, primarily because both are different situations at different junctures in time.

A Dub in Glasgo

philologos wrote: »

Scotland were it to weather an economic crisis on its own without the rest of Britain would severely falter as far as I can tell with such a high dependence on public sector workers, and for as long as it receives economic support from Westminster. I doubt that Scotland could provide the same degree of defence as the UK can offer, given that if Scotland became independent all defensive property that exists including naval vessels, aircraft, etc would be the property of the rest of Britain.

Is this your back up for saying Scotland is wholly dependent on the UK? Scotland would not need as much defence spending considering a lot of UK capability is about fighting wars abroad together with the WMD which happens to be based less than 30 miles from me here in Glasgow.

A proportion of the UK mlitary would transfer to Scotland, why would all of it stay with the rest of the UK?

philologos

^^ I doubt any capital possessions of the military including aircraft, naval units, and arms would be transferred to Scotland though.

What arguments do the yaysayers have to offer about Scotland's viability as an independent state other than that they like the idea?

Killer Pigeon

This whole saga of Scottish Independence is like a scene from Macbeth; Salmond being Macbeth.

Salmond: "David Cameron! That is a step on which I must fall down or else o'erleap, for in my way it lies. Stars, hide they fires; let not light see my black and deep desires."

bwatson

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Is this your back up for saying Scotland is wholly dependent on the UK? Scotland would not need as much defence spending considering a lot of UK capability is about fighting wars abroad together with the WMD which happens to be based less than 30 miles from me here in Glasgow.

A proportion of the UK mlitary would transfer to Scotland, why would all of it stay with the rest of the UK?

If Scotland were to become an independent nation it would only have a very small standing army. Ultimately, what Scotland gets would be up to the MoD of the United Kingdom. I read somewhere that the Scots would be given the Royal Regiment of Scotland as the backbone of their army which would seem the obvious thing to do, however I shall still try and find the source. It will surely be a case of what the MoD wants to keep, the MoD keeps.

The Scots I very much doubt would be given any of the new Destroyers or Carriers to be based in Portsmouth. The Scots want a force to protect and patrol their waters, not one to project their forces across the world. Patrol boats, maybe one of the new Astute class submarines, and possibly two frigates would be all they could afford (at best) immediatelyollowing independenceThe Nuclear Force would ultimately have to be relocated to England due to the SNP's (some might say admirable) policy on nuclear weapons. I would hope that plans for this transfer are as old as the independence debate itself.

It will be a hugely messy and complicated process. I wonder, for example, will Scots be allowed to remain working for British (now English/Welsh/Northern Irish) intelligence services, or on the nuclear submarines etc). If the Scots make the decision these islands will be in a state of panic and upheaval for the best part of a decade.

ejmaztec

philologos wrote: »

^^ I doubt any capital possessions of the military including aircraft, naval units, and arms would be transferred to Scotland though.

What arguments do the yaysayers have to offer about Scotland's viability as an independent state other than that they like the idea?

They'd have to be, in the same way that the Soviet Union's military assets were split.

Scotland has a fair amount of mineral wealth, coal etc, so in this respect I think it would have more than Ireland, and Ireland manages to survive.

Noreen1

I support the right of a people to self-determination.

Therefore, if the Scots want independence, then England has no moral right to deny it.
If, on the other hand, the Scots choose to remain as part of the Union, then that is equally their choice, and they have a right to make that choice.

I have no doubt that the Scots will consider all the issues, and vote accordingly.
Predictions about the defence forces etc., are, imo, premature, since such issues will undoubtedly be negotiated fiercely. After all, if Scotland contributed to the Union for all these years, surely it is entitled to its fair share of the assets of that Union - no?

WoundedRhino

As an exiled Scot, I would vote against indepndence in my homeland. Speaking completely from my own point of view I like the Union the way it is and as the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it, and I'm more of the opinion that we should be trying to unify the world rather than dividing it.

It's going to be a very close run thing I think. In the north (where I am from) the vast majority of people are hugely behind independence and having been screaming for it for years, whereas those in the south are traditionally more pro-Union and more likely to vote UK parties like Labour / Tory / Lib Dem. That said, the SNP swept the boards at the last election so there's definitely a growing feeling in the country that independence may actually happen. My worry is that people who are so staunchly pro-independence are doing so for the wrong reasons and may not be thinking in the long term.

philologos

A lot of these posts seem to be ignoring much of what I've already said. Please make sure you read my posts in their entirety before posting a response.

My POV is pretty much that Scotland has the right to vote in a referendum on the subject, but I think the result will be pro-union.

ejmaztec

philologos wrote: »

A lot of these posts seem to be ignoring much of what I've already said. Please make sure you read my posts in their entirety before posting a response.

My POV is pretty much that Scotland has the right to vote in a referendum on the subject, but I think the result will be pro-union.

If there were more hours in the day, and this wasn't AH, I might have done just that.:D

Noreen1

philologos wrote: »

A lot of these posts seem to be ignoring much of what I've already said. Please make sure you read my posts in their entirety before posting a response.

My POV is pretty much that Scotland has the right to vote in a referendum on the subject, but I think the result will be pro-union.

If that's aimed at me, I read your posts in their entirety.
I merely disagree with anyone making assumptions, at this point, on the outcome of negotiations that have yet to take place.

Nor was that point aimed specifically at you. It was to illustrate the fact that the issue is being clouded by peoples own desires as to the possible outcome of a referendum.
That's why I said that the choice should be for the Scots to make, ideally based on as much factual knowledge as possible, rather than what will inevitably prove to be arguments and counterarguments by people wishing to influence the vote. (last part not aimed at you, either)

woodoo

Scottish Nationalism has begun to grow and it will be hard to put back in the box now. They probably won't leave this time but the seed will have been set for independence over the medium term imo.

LordSutch

woodoo wrote: »

Scottish Nationalism has begun to grow and it will be hard to put back in the box now. They probably won't leave this time but the seed will have been set for independence over the medium term imo.

Hopefully a definitive question will be asked, YES or NO to staying in the Union (forget DevoMax), I would also hope that a reasonable timscale 're this issue' will be inserted into the procedings so that it will be at least thirty years before the next referendum on the Union can be held.

The UK can't afford to have the permanent threat of destabilisation hanging over it.

Fratton Fred

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I also believe that a close look at all of the flows of finances and material benefits in both directions would reveal that in fact Scotland more than pays its way. Why, otherwise, would the ruling classes in England be so willing to hold on to the place?

Here's a very insightful article by one respected Scottish commentator who does not brown-tongue the Sassenachs.

Some interesting points there.

Who are these ruling classes of which you speak? The current PM David Cameron, whore Father Ian Donald came from Aberdeen, his predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, both of whom hail from Scotland?

Are these the Sasanachs that need brown tonguing?