But there is nothing to stop at the fringe when there is a wide world out there.
What part of being in the union exactly is preventing the promotion of Scottish culture?
Your original point (which I agree with) is that you need a lot more than economic arguments to make a successful independence movement.
To quote yourself "heart, national pride and preservation of their culture that will drive independence movements"
And I agree with that also.
I also agree that Scotland should decide.
But what I don't agree with is that the examples you have given in the past few posts are enough to ensure a successful independence referendum.
Scottish culture is not under threat, Scottish identity is not under threat.
Both are existing and doing well in the status quo.
I don't think there are enough Scots willing to take the economic hit of going independent because of some perceived threat to their identity.
Economics might not be a solid argument for independence but it is certainly used by voters as a reason to reject independence.
We are members of the UN Security Council - a position not available to Scotland as a minor, ignored, member of the UK. It would be available to them if they were independent. It is not our first stint in the position, but validates our pursuit, as an independent nation, to be neutral in this war torn world.
Membership of the EU as an independent state is not only an economic matter but it identifies them as European, which is cultural. I think that the Scottish people value that - as evidenced by the fact they voted to remain - and by quite a bit more than 52% to 48% which is the yardstick for democratic validity. The Erasmus scheme is just one example of EU solidarity, which the Tory UK eschews with great vigour. There are many others.
Why stop at the fringe, there is a wide world out there.
Scotland should decide for Scotland.
And by holding off they probably increase the yes vote.
Do you really think that Scots angry at being outside the EU are angy because university students can't get Erasmus or are they angry because it has affected trade and the economy?
As for the Scots being outward, they certainly were, they were some of Victoria's finest empire builders.
The Edinburg festival is pretty big, and it says Scottish to many parts of the world , is that not an example of their Riverdance?
At independence something like 92% of our exports went to poundland. Pegging to Sterling took out all the currency fluctuation risk. It's now close to 8% of exports going to GB.
Just in case there is any confusion Scotland already has Sterling assets to cover every single Scottish banknote in circulation because it's the law. So the Scottish pound is 100% backed by Sterling right now. And there is no reason to change that or float the currency until Scotland diversifies it's markets.
The six Scottish and Northern Ireland banks must, by law, set aside assets that are worth at least the value of all of the banknotes they have in circulation. This ensures that people with genuine banknotes issued by the six banks receive a level of protection similar to people who have genuine Bank of England banknotes.
The assets can be a combination of Bank of England banknotes, UK coins and funds held in an account at the Bank of England. This means that, if one of the banks failed, the backing assets could be used to reimburse everyone who has one of its banknotes.
Bank of England banknotes held as backing assets may be kept either at an authorised location or at the Bank of England. Some of these banknotes are of very high value, including £1 million banknotes (known as Giants) and £100 million banknotes (known as Titans).
The wish to remain part of the EU was not just economics - Erasmus was cultural based on the wish to travel and learn a European perspective on life. The Scots have a history of travelling the world. They have always had an outward view rather than the English inward view.
I never said that they had a stifling wish for a Scottish Riverdance, just that it is a worldwide phenomena that says 'Irish' to many parts of the world. Why would the Scots not want a similar phenomenal success?
"the taxes are too high, who needs all this tea anyway?"
There was also a little matter like the English refused to allow the expansion of their colonies west of the Appallacian mountains, into their Indian allies' lands. This would have been one of the major, unstated, reasons for breaking away.
True to some extent.
You may have noticed that Canada, had their own currency not too long after receiving the power to decide. Oz, NZ and SA stayed tied to the Pound until the 1960s - however we didn't - we remained tied to Sterling pretty much until we got hitched to the EMU.
Sturgeon seems to attract an especially hostile, visceral reaction from some quarters
I think it's her very calm, reasonable, unruffled manner; added to the very genuine English fear of losing control of all that productive land and sea.
They keep saying that Scotland couldn't pay for itself, but have you ever heard a central government say different about a region or colony that wants to control its own destiny?
Labour are finished in Scotland. They are very unlikely to win the next GE outright and may need to do a deal with the SNP.
Economically Scotland is a colony that sells food and fuel to England in a UK economy setup to support the export of financial services from England.
But the wish for EU membership is 100% about economics.
It about trade and the value of trade, it's not about any cultural ties with Denmark, The Netherlands or someplace like Bulgaria.
And they are dead right to pursue membership if they do get independence.
I read the SNP white paper from the 2014 vote and it was heavy on the economic benefits that would allegedly be coming from independence.
And what exactly is stifling that wish for a Scottish version of Riverdance.
Given that there is a law that says NI can vote every 7 years or so, it will eventually become difficult to keep refusing the Scots a second chance; but as the general belief is that the referendum could easily go the 'wrong' way at present, the mandarins in London will hold off until they have no choice.
But the Queen has no vote.
Nah, there are quite a few Tories in the Highlands and in the farming areas of the NE around Aberdeen. Lairds and the like, and Queenie has a house there too.
They are a hard bunch to work out. They seem to be in love with the Tory Party and with right wing English nationalism and to hate Sturgeon and the SNP with a vengeance.
As you say though, a lot of them might be English immigrants or even English people living in England itself but pretending to be Scottish residents.
The wish to join the EU. The wish to make a Scottish voice heard among the nations of the world. The wish for a Scottish version of Riverdance. Scotland can be a Frosty place for some in the grip of the misguided worship of Anglo-centric politics.
The Anglo centric corrupt Westminster Tory government will (could be) be replaced by an Anglo-centric Labour party that might be corrupt or not, but will still ignore Scotland since they lost all their Scottish MPs.
Use your imagination.
Not withstanding Frost and his rabmlings in a Tory newspaper none of what you describe above as being part of the Scottish identity is under threat.
And the Anglo centric corrupt Westminster Tory government you talk about could be gone in a few years given the way they are going.
So what will drive independence if the culture is not under threat?
But what percentage are these 'Scottish' unionists - or are they merely the English migrants who have moved north? Even the British Gov refers to Scotland as a country - and if the Tory Gov does, it must be true.
If the polls are to be believed, there is a better than 50% who want independence, and quite a few of the rest could be open to be persuaded if the right campaign is conducted leading to a referendum.
Truss thinks they should be ignored and no-way will a referendum be allowed. The Tory Gov actively ignores them by denying them speaking time on Scottish bills.
How stupid are these Scottish Unionists? And how stupid are the rest of the Scottish people to give them any time to deny them their right to self determination?
The 'Scottish unionist' crowd are a really strange bunch. I've seen numerous ones on social media arguing vehemently that Scotland is not a real country and is merely a British region. They almost sound more hardcore and ideological than the DUP in Northern Ireland.
They have a rugby team, a football team, a football league, a national anthem, a devolved assembly, a different and readily identifiable culture involving the kilt, haggis, highland games, Scottish dancing, their own still living Gallic language - what more do they need. They have their own legal system that is apart from that of England, and their own bank notes.
The local accent changes as soon as the border is crossed - no blended transition. There is no doubt that when you are in Scotland, you know you are in Scotland.
It is getting the Scots to believe that they alone, through their votes and their politicians elected by their votes, are the only ones to be trusted to decide matters for Scotland.
Not give way to an Anglo centric corrupt Tory Westminster Gov that holds them in contempt - only fit to be ignored as not being worthy to be even considered.
How could a true Scot argue with themselves having control over their own lives?
So it is the heart, national pride and preservation of their culture that will drive independence movements - always has.
So the question I have is how applicable to modern day Scotland is the above?
Because they need it to be applicable to get a majority to vote for independence
India was led to independence by Ghandi - a pacifist who succeeded through peaceful means. However the appalling partition of India led to huge population movements, and many many deaths, including Ghandi's. Economics was far from Ghandi's mind.
Kenya and most British colonies fought for independence for generations, and economics was far from the minds of those who led the fight.
Perhaps Hong Kong was not fought over economics - perhaps, but China is a big adversary.
We know why we fought for Independence, and for how long. Economics had nothing to do with our fight.
Perhaps South Africa is the exception, but that was really because of race and Apartheid.
It would actually make for an interesting point of research: successful independence movements whose primary pillar of decoupling was based purely in economics. Maybe America, at a pinch? But even that quickly became one of self-determination rather than "the taxes are too high, who needs all this tea anyway?". Eventually the heart has to drive the decision to pick up a gun, take to give streets with a placard, or tick a ballot paper. Independence is inherently emotional because the nation-state is a deliberate, emotional construct based on fuzzy lines on a map.
I would be bullish enough to go further and suggest it's deeply arrogant and patronising for other nationalities, especially those a century removed from their own independence movement, to wax intellectual about what should or shouldn't be a driver when pushing for nationhood.
I think a lot of second and later wives of very wealthy American men do precisely that - and intend taking 50% of his wealth with them.
However, most people do not make that kind of decision of a financial basis, and nations should not be forced into populist decisions.
.
Which was probably even understood by many at the time. I find it quite baffling that a country going for independence would base their decision on whether it was economically viable or not. It would be like a man pondering whether to divorce his wife or stay with her for the rest of his life going through his bank account to check on how it would impact on his finances and solely basing his decision on that.
If independence was purely about economics and nothing else, we'd still be in the Union. Simple as. We brought ruin to ourselves for decades until we started to assert some semblance of planning
Bringing the economic prospects of an independent Scotland as a major issue is a straw man argument. Economies are subject to vagaries and can change course in an instant due to international issues outside of any nations control. The last few years should be a lesson to all.
In the IndyRef, the price of oil was low, and predicted to go lower, and oil was seen as crucial to the Scottish economy. Now oil and gas are high, but wind energy, particularly offshore, is proving to be a nice little earner, which was not seen in 2014.
They were told that they would not be permitted to use the GB£ as their currency - which of course is nonsense as they could peg the Scottish Haggis currency to any international currency they choose, or even a basket of currencies as many independent nations do, usually based on trading mix. Being tied to the GB£ could be a disaster if a tax cutting, kleptocratic chumocracy, utterly corrupt, Tory Gov were to take control of the UK.
Another issue was the prospect of Scotland being kicked out of the EU if they voted for independence, but they voted YES so they could remain, but got kicked out of the EU even though Scotland voted to remain. Currently, Scotland's interests are being totally ignored by Westminster, even to the extent of the Tory Gov preventing Scottish MPs talking on Scottish bills.
The basic argument the pro independence side should put, and no other argument should be necessary, is that an independent Scotland will decide all issues to favour Scottish interests as determined by Scottish voters and Scottish politicians. Who could argue against that?
Their cry should be - LET SCOTLAND DECIDE.
That is absolutely appalling.
Imagine we were part of the UK and being spoken about in the media like that.
I used to be at best neutral on Scottish independence but I'm actually reaching the point now where I hope Scottish voters grow a pair and go their own way.
I find the economic argument against independence (Table 3) a really strange one. Virtually no country that became independent in Europe in the last 30 years (and there have been a lot of them) paid any attention to the economic situation when deciding to go for independence.
Latest Ipsos Scotland poll has some interesting results.
I would have expected higher support for the proposal to use the general election as an independence vote. Perhaps opinions will change if the courts rule against the Scottish government having the right to call a referendum, as most seem to think will be the case.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e68aa2b0e039b12ade8384a2f42841c6.svg)
